-26-
term is unenforceable because of public policy considerations,
and lists numerous illustrations in the comments ranging from
illegality to unreasonable restraints on trade. Other casebook
examples disallow deductions for fines, Tank Truck Rentals, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 356 U.S. 30, 36 (1958), or bribes, Rugel v.
Commissioner, 127 F.2d 393, 395 (8th Cir. 1942), affg. 1941 WL
9990 B.T.A. 1941. But Commissioner v. Tellier, 383 U.S. 687, 694
(1966), warns us of the narrowness of this aid in statutory
construction--the public policy being frustrated must be shown by
a governmental declaration, and the frustration that would be
caused by allowing the contested deduction must be severe and
immediate. Our caution has deep roots: “Public policy is a very
unruly horse, and when once you get astride it you never know
where it will carry you. It may lead you from the sound law. It
is never argued at all, but when other points fail.” E. Allan
Farnsworth, Contracts, 326 (3d ed. 1999), citing Burrough, J., in
Richardson v. Mellish, 130 Eng. Rep. 294, 303 (Ex. 1824).
The disclaimer in this case involves a fractional formula
that increases the amount donated to charity should the value of
the estate be increased. We are hard pressed to find any
fundamental public policy against making gifts to charity--if
anything the opposite is true. Public policy encourages gifts to
charity, and Congress allows charitable deductions to encourage
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008