- 18 -
altogether failed to obtain a qualified appraisal.” D’Arcangelo
v. Commissioner, supra.
Turning to the facts of the instant case, we agree with
respondent that petitioners did not substantially comply with the
regulations. For the reasons discussed supra, none of the
appraisals that petitioners obtained is a qualified appraisal.
Unlike the reporting requirements at issue in Bond, the qualified
appraisal requirement is mandatory, not merely directory. Our
caselaw is clear that we cannot apply the doctrine of substantial
compliance to excuse a taxpayer’s failure to meet this
requirement. See, e.g., Hewitt v. Commissioner, supra at 264-
266; D’Arcangelo v. Commissioner, supra.
We also note that the requirements that the appraiser and
the donee sign the Form 8283 also appear to be mandatory. By
signing the appraiser’s declaration, the appraiser potentially
subjects himself to a penalty under section 6701. This
requirement serves the purpose of DEFRA section 155 by
discouraging the overvaluation of charitable contributions. See
Hewitt v. Commissioner, supra at 265 (and the legislative history
cited thereat); see also Estate of Chamberlain v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-181 (“substantial compliance cannot be applied if
to do so would defeat the policies of the underlying statutory
provisions”). By signing the donee’s acknowledgment, the donee
asserts that it is a charitable organization. This requirement
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011