- 41 -
would result in future increases in sales); Murphy v.
Commissioner, 54 T.C. 249, 254 (1970) (no charitable contribution
deduction for payment to effect adoption of child).
The Supreme Court has further instructed that in
ascertaining whether a given payment or property transfer was
made with the expectation of any return benefit or quid pro quo,
we are to examine the external, structural features of the
transaction, which obviates the need for imprecise inquiries into
the motivations of individual taxpayers. Hernandez v.
Commissioner, supra at 690-691. In Hernandez, where the Supreme
Court found a lack of donative intent in the taxpayers' payments
to the Church of Scientology for certain "auditing" and training
sessions, the external features cited by the Court included the
church's establishment of fixed price schedules for the sessions,
calibrated to length and level of sophistication; the provision
of refunds if session services went unperformed; and the
categorical prohibition on providing the sessions for free.
These external features revealed the "inherently reciprocal
nature of the exchange" involving the payments and the services
provided by the church. A taxpayer who receives or expects to
receive a benefit in return for a purported contribution may
nonetheless be allowed a deduction if the money or property
transferred clearly exceeds the benefit received and the excess
is given with the intent to make a gift.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008