- 83 -
In Stark v. Commissioner, supra at 252-253, we explained as
follows:
Where the interest retained by the taxpayer is so
insubstantial that he has, in substance, transferred
his entire interest in the property, the tax treatment
should so reflect. * * *
* * * A charitable contribution deduction should
be allowed only where the retained interest has a de
minimis value. Moreover, the insubstantial retained
interest must not potentially interfere in any manner
with the donee’s interest. * * * [Citation omitted.]
In Rev. Rul. 81-282, 1981-2 C.B. 78, it was concluded that a
taxpayer’s retention of a right to vote shares of stock
contributed to charity constitutes a substantial right because a
right to vote gives the holder a voice in the management of the
company and is crucial to protecting a stockholder’s financial
interest.
In Miami Natl. Bank v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 793, 800
(1977), (involving the transfer of stock into a subordinated
securities account), we concluded that retained voting rights,
among others, constitute substantial rights.
Application to McCord
As stated, the retained rights involved in Rev. Rul. 81-282,
1981-2 C.B. 78, appear to be analogous to the rights retained by
petitioners herein. By providing in the MIL partnership
agreement limitations on transfers of MIL partnership interests
and by transferring to CFT only an assignee interest in MIL,
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011