John A. Rowe and Donna L. Rowe - Page 50




                                       - 50 -                                         
          Petitioner testified that she regularly attended the St. Cloud              
          First United Methodist Church during the years in issue and that            
          she was very involved in church activities.  Petitioner testified           
          that she and Mr. Rowe had tithed regularly during their entire              
          married life.  In 1987, petitioner wrote five checks totaling               
          $5,500 to the church on the NCNB account, and respondent allowed            
          the $5,556 charitable contribution deduction claimed on the 1987            
          return.  The Schedule A attached to the 1988 return indicates               
          that most, if not all, of the claimed contribution deduction                
          related to the church.  The Schedule A attached to the 1989                 
          return does not indicate whether the claimed deduction related to           
          the church; however, petitioner’s testimony indicates that she              
          believed that the claimed deduction for 1989 also related to the            
          church that she regularly attended and was very active in.  In              
          the instant case, petitioner has failed to show that it is                  
          appropriate to allocate the charitable contribution items for               
          1988 and 1989 other than equally between her and Mr. Rowe.                  



               25(...continued)                                                       
               Personal deduction items are expected to be allocated                  
               equally between spouses, unless the evidence shows that                
               a different allocation is appropriate.  For example, a                 
               charitable contribution normally would be allocated                    
               equally to both spouses.  However, if the wife provides                
               evidence that the deduction relates to the contribution                
               of an asset that was the sole property of the husband,                 
               any deficiency assessed because it is later determined                 
               that the value of the property was overstated would be                 
               allocated to the husband. [S. Rept. 105-174, at 57                     
               (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 593.]                                         





Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011