Michael and Marla Sklar - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               A taxpayer may not deduct a payment as a charitable                    
          contribution if the taxpayer receives a substantial benefit for a           
          payment to a charitable organization.  Id. at 116-117; Ottawa               
          Silica Co. v. United States, 699 F.2d 1124, 1131 (Fed. Cir.                 
          1983); Singer Co. v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 90, 449 F.2d 413,           
          420, 422 (1971); S. Rept. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 196 (1954).             
          If the size of a taxpayer’s payment to a charity is clearly out             
          of proportion to the benefit received, the taxpayer may claim a             
          charitable contribution equal to the difference between a payment           
          to the charitable organization and the market value of the                  
          benefit received in return on the theory that the payment has the           
          “dual character” of a purchase and a contribution.  United States           
          v. Am. Bar Endowment, supra at 117.  To be deductible, a                    
          charitable contribution must be a gift; i.e., a transfer of                 
          property without adequate consideration.  Sec. 170(c); United               
          States v. Am. Bar Endowment, supra at 118; Sklar v. Commissioner,           
          supra at 612.                                                               
                    c.   Dual Payment Theory and Tuition Paid for a Secular           
                         and Religious Education                                      
               It is well established that tuition paid to schools which              
          provide both secular and religious education is not deductible as           
          a charitable contribution because it is not paid with detached              
          and disinterested generosity and because the payor expects a                
          substantial benefit in return.  Oppewal v. Commissioner, 468 F.2d           
          1000 (1st Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo. 1971-273; Winters v.                 





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011