- 45 -
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners in each of these cases have failed to
carry their burden of establishing that under section 170 they
are entitled for 1999 to petitioners’ respective claimed noncash
charitable contribution deductions or to any other deductions
attributable to KQC’s claimed noncash charitable contribution to
TMC of the improved property on Maple Street or any portion of
such property.
19(...continued)
of a bona fide inter vivos gift that are in dispute were present
with respect to KQC’s claimed noncash charitable contribution to
TMC. Nor do we have to address respondent’s position that
petitioners in each of these cases have failed to carry their
burden of showing that they substantially complied with all of
the substantiation requirements under sec. 170 and the regula-
tions thereunder. We note, however, that Mr. Mumford’s December
17, 1999 letter (1) did not contain the actual or expected date
of a charitable contribution of all or a portion of the improved
property on Maple Street that was the subject of that letter,
(2) did not indicate that Mr. Mumford prepared it in order to
substantiate a charitable contribution for tax purposes, and
(3) made no reference to the notice of Federal interest that on
May 15, 1998, was filed with respect to the improved property on
Maple Street with the Sandusky County recorder’s office. We also
note (1) that KQC’s Form 8283 included as part of KQC’s 1999
return did not contain certain information required by that form
(e.g., the date and manner of KQC’s acquisition of the property
purportedly contributed to TMC or the cost or other basis of such
property, adjusted as provided by sec. 1016) and (2) that the
donee acknowledgment in that form was not completed by TMC but
was left blank. Finally, in light of our finding that petition-
ers have failed to carry their burden of establishing that all of
the essential elements of a bona fide inter vivos gift were
present on Dec. 31, 1999 (or at any other time in 1999) with
respect to KQC’s claimed noncash charitable contribution to TMC,
we need not address the parties’ dispute over the fair market
value of any such claimed contribution. In this regard, we need
not make any comments in addition to the comments that we made at
the trial in these cases with respect to the parties’ respective
experts and such experts’ respective reports.
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011