David C. Roark and Estate of Irene Roark, Deceased, David C. Roark, Executor - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
               In Addis, as here, the taxpayer negotiated a charitable                
          split-dollar life insurance contract.  The insurance policy there           
          also was owned by a trust, whose beneficiaries were also the                
          taxpayer’s family.  The taxpayer in Addis also set up a                     
          foundation with a charity.  She also donated money to the                   
          charity, and the charity also issued an acknowledgment letter               
          with language designed to meet section 170(f)(8)'s substantiation           
          requirements; i.e., that the charity “did not provide any goods             
          or services to the donor in return for the contribution.”  That             
          charity also used the donated funds to pay the premiums on a life           
          insurance contract, entitling it to a percentage of the proceeds            
          upon the taxpayer’s death.                                                  
               Our analysis in Addis centered on the substantiation                   
          requirement.  Taxpayers may deduct cash contributions that are              
          made to a qualified donee organization.  Sec. 170(a).  If a                 
          taxpayer contributes $250 or more at one time, the donee                    
          organization must substantiate the donation in writing for the              
          deduction to be allowed.  Sec. 170(f)(8).                                   
               This writing must specify whether the donor received or                
          expected to receive any goods or services from the charity in               


               7(...continued)                                                        
          (7th Cir. 1985).  There are exceptions, Golsen v. Commissioner,             
          54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), but           
          they do not apply here.  Now that our previous opinions in Addis            
          (and Weiner) have been affirmed, we of course have no reason not            
          to follow them.                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011