- 19 -
d. Absence of Charitable Intent
Like the taxpayers in the cases just cited, petitioners
received a substantial benefit for their tuition payments. We
next consider whether petitioners had any charitable intent in
paying their children’s tuition. See United States v. Am. Bar
Endowment, 477 U.S. at 117-118; Sklar v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d
at 612. Petitioners do not so claim; and, as discussed next, the
record shows they could not have made that claim successfully.
In Sklar v. Commissioner, supra at 621, the Court of Appeals
said that petitioners did not show that “any dual payments they
may have made exceeded the market value of the secular education
their children received”; i.e., “the cost of a comparable secular
education offered by private schools”. The Court of Appeals also
said petitioners had “failed to show that they intended to make a
gift by contributing any such ‘excess payment’” and thus could
not prevail under United States v. Am. Bar Endowment, supra. Id.
The parties introduced into evidence information about
tuition costs and qualitative aspects of private schools,
primarily in the Los Angeles area. The record supports the
conclusion that tuition at Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn is
higher than the average tuition at Los Angeles area Catholic
schools, but equal to or lower than average tuition at other Los
Angeles area Orthodox Jewish schools (Ohr Eliyahu Academy and
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011