- 32 -
ent, “Congress intended to differentiate between unrequited
payments to qualified recipients and payments made to such
recipients in return for goods or services. Only the former were
deemed deductible.” Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 690
(1989). Congress also intended that a transfer of money or
property to or for the use of a qualified recipient qualify as a
contribution or gift for purposes of section 170 only if such
transfer was made with no expectation of any quid pro quo from
such recipient. See Hernandez v. Commissioner, supra; see also
Osborne v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 575, 581 (1986); Rusoff v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 459, 469 (1975), affd. without published
opinion 556 F.2d 559 (2d Cir. 1977). In determining whether the
cancellation of MHR Properties’ St. Clair property interests by
petitioners, as the general partners of MHR Properties, was made
with the expectation of any quid pro quo from the University, we
shall focus on the external features relating to that cancella-
tion. See Hernandez v. Commissioner, supra at 690-691; United
States v. American Bar Endowment, supra at 117-118.
To support their position that the cancellation of MHR
Properties’ leasehold interest and MHR Properties’ purchase
option was a contribution or gift to the University within the
meaning of section 170(c), petitioners rely on (1) their own
testimony and that of certain other witnesses and (2) labels,
such as the label “gift”, that were used by them and certain
other witnesses at the trial in this case and that appeared in
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011