- 14 -
In sum, although we treat petitioner as the owner of the
income portion of the trust, petitioners are not entitled to
deduct the value of the conservation easements because
petitioners have not proven that the trust’s contribution was
from the income portion of the trust.
III. Deemed Distributions of Net Income
Petitioners argue in their reply brief that, alternatively,
the trust’s charitable contributions were actually deemed
distributions to petitioner followed by charitable contributions
by petitioner. We refuse to find the facts as petitioners argue.
The evidence in the record suggests that the trust and
petitioners did not account for the charitable contribution as a
deemed distribution. Although charitable contributions were made
in the past that the trust and petitioners did account for in
this manner, this particular contribution does not appear to be
one of them. The trust’s financial spreadsheet prepared by the
trust’s CPA indicates that only $46,465 was accounted for as a
deemed distribution in 2000. Petitioners’ argument therefore
contradicts the trust’s own books and records. Moreover,
petitioners did not treat themselves on their income tax returns
as directly contributing the conservation easements. They
claimed pass-through deductions, not direct deductions under
section 170. We decline to find the transaction was a deemed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011