- 43 -
failed to show that they are entitled to a charitable contribu-
tion deduction under section 170(a) with respect to the cancella-
tion of those property interests.13 Accordingly, we sustain
respondent’s determination disallowing that claimed deduction.
12(...continued)
appraisal must be received by the donor before the due date,
including extensions, of the tax return on which a deduction is
first claimed under sec. 170 with respect to the donated prop-
erty. See sec. 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i) and (iv)(B), Income Tax Regs.
The due date of petitioners’ joint return, including extensions,
was Oct. 15, 1992. On the record before us, we find that peti-
tioners have failed to establish that they received a qualified
appraisal before Oct. 15, 1992. We decline to accept Mr. Nizny’s
testimony and other evidence in the record that he prepared,
signed, and provided to Mr. Signom on Oct. 13, 1992, a letter
setting forth his appraisal with respect to the MHR Properties’
purchase option. As we indicated supra note 10, we found Mr.
Nizny and the documents which he prepared that are in the record
to be unreliable. Moreover, Mr. Nizny’s testimony about Mr.
Nizny’s letter dated October 13, 1992, is inconsistent with
certain documentary evidence in the record that he prepared
before the trial in this case.
13We have considered all of the arguments and contentions of
petitioners that are not discussed herein, including their
contentions relying on DuVal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-603
and Scheffres v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1969-41. We find those
arguments and contentions to be without merit. We find DuVal and
Scheffres to be distinguishable from the instant case and peti-
tioners reliance on those cases to be misplaced.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011