- 15 -
distribution to petitioner followed by a direct charitable
contribution by petitioner.
IV. Conclusion
We conclude that petitioners are not entitled to a deduction
for the trust’s charitable contribution of the conservation
easements. While petitioner is treated as the owner of the
income portion of the trust, petitioners have failed to prove
that the conservation easements were made from the income portion
of the trust. The mere fact that petitioner failed to withdraw
approximately $2.2 million of income due him does not cause
petitioner to be the owner of the corpus because the trust income
he was owed was wholly separate from the corpus. Petitioners
also have not proven that the trust’s distributions to charity
were deemed distributions to petitioner, followed by his
contribution of the easements to charity.
No further trial will be necessary concerning the valuation
issue because we have found for respondent on the threshold
issue.
In reaching our holding, we have considered all arguments
made, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are
moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: May 25, 2011