Charles A. and Marian L. Derby, et al. - Page 49




                                        - 49 -                                        
               Since petitioners received consideration for their                     
          intangibles, their charitable contribution deductions fail unless           
          they can show, pursuant to the theory approved in United States v.          
          Am. Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986), that the transfer of their          
          intangibles to SMF had a "dual character" as both a transfer for            
          consideration30 and a contribution.  To do so, however, petitioners         
          "must at a minimum demonstrate that * * * [they] purposely                  
          contributed money or property in excess of the value of any                 
          benefit * * * [they] received in return."  Id. at 118; see also             
          Sklar v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d at 620-622.                                 
               Petitioners have not shown that the value of what they                 
          transferred to SMF exceeded the value of the benefits they                  
          received in return.  As noted above, those benefits included, in            

               29(...continued)                                                       
          excess of fair market value over the (purported) purchase price.            
          In our view, this provision is a self-serving attempt to support            
          the claim for a charitable deduction contribution.  As discussed            
          hereinafter, the SWMG physicians received many other kinds of               
          consideration in connection with the integrated transaction.  The           
          effort in the APAs to allocate any consideration away from the              
          intangible assets was self-serving for the SWMG physicians and a            
          matter of indifference for SMF.  Notably, notwithstanding the               
          APAs' characterization of a contribution of intangible assets,              
          SMF did not report the receipt of any such contributions on its             
          Form 990 for 1994.                                                          
               30 United States v. Am. Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986),            
          and the revenue ruling therein approved by the Supreme Court                
          (Rev. Rul. 67-246, 1967-2 C.B. 104) both involved transfers of              
          cash for goods or services that purportedly had dual characters             
          as purchases and contributions.  The same principle applies,                
          however, to a transfer of property for consideration, see, e.g.,            
          Transamerica Corp. v. United States, 902 F.2d 1540, 1543-1546               
          (Fed. Cir. 1990), such as the transfer of the assets of                     
          petitioners' medical practices at issue.                                    





Page:  Previous  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008