TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Richard A. & Catherine H. Talda
Docket Number: 17455-06S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/22/2008
Pages: 6

RECORDE D STA' a . FILE S UNITED STATES TA WASHINGTON, D.C COURT 20217 RICHARD A . and CATHERINE H . TALD A Petitioners , V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU E Respondent . * * * ORDE R Docket No . 17455-06 S . Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Cou t Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the herewith to petitioners and to respon of the transcript of the trial of the Joseph R . Goeke at Cincinnati, O containing his oral findings .of f act the conclusion of trial . Court shall transmit ent a copy of the pages above case before Judge iio, on May 1, 2008, and opinion rendered a t In accordance with the oral findi : decision will be entered under Rule 1 gs of fact and opinion, 5 . (Signed ) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge DATED : Washington, D .C . May 22, 2008 SERVED MAY 2 3 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robe r Goeke May 1, 200 8 2 Talda v . Commissioner Docket No . 17455-06 S 3 4 THE COURT : The Court ha s decided to render Oral 5 Findings of Fact and opinion in th i case and the following 6 represents the Court's Oral Findin g of Fact and Opinion . 7 The Oral Findings of Fact and Opin i n shall not be relie d 8 upon as precedent in any other case 9 This Bench Opinion is mad pursuant to Sectio n 10 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Cod and Rule 152 of the Tax 11 Court Rules of Practice and Proced e . Section references 12 in this Bench Opinion are to the I ternal Revenue Code . 13 This case was heard purs ant to the provisions o f 14 Section 7463 in effect when the pe ition was filed . 15 Pursuant to Section 7463(b) the de ision to be entered is 16 not reviewable by any other Court . And this opinion shall 17 not be treated as precedent for an other case . 18 This case involved a def ciency determination made 19 by Respondent in a notice of defic ency issued for the 20 taxable year 2003, asserting a def ciency in federal incom e 21 tax in the amount of $2,139 . 22 The issue in this case t rns solely on the 23 disallowance of certain non-cash c 2 ntributions claimed by 24 Petitioners on Schedule A of their Federal Income Tax Retur n 25 for the year 2003 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 4 1 The case involved a stip u ation of facts and 2 testimony and the stipulation and t e attached documents are 3 incorporated into this opinion by t is reference . 4 The Court finds as fact t at the Petitioners have 5 documented deductions as follows . 46 .16 to Incarnation 6 Church ; $185 .35 also is deduction o tangible property to 7 Incarnation Church ; $867 to Hannah ' Treasure Chest ; $1,14 7 8 to St . Vincent DePaul ; $179 to Art e Lis Center fo r 9 Alternatives for Domestic violence , with the exception of 10 $19 of that amount which is determ i ed to be non-deductible ; 11 $183 to AmVets ; $70 to AmVets ; $36 5 in a combine d 12 calculation, some of which went t o mVets and some of which 13 went to Goodwill ; $248 to Hannah' s reasure Chest ; and 14 amount deductible by Petitioners, 1,935 to St . Peter' s 15 Catholic Church for distributio n other charities . 16 This factual determinat i n by the Court doesn't 17 end the legal analysis here, becau e Respondent maintains 18 that the documentation provided by the Petitioners i s 19 insufficient under Section 170 . d Respondent als o 20 maintains that the amounts deduct e to St . Peter's Church in 21 Chillicothe, Ohio, is not deducti b e because those amount s 22 were actually, at the time deduct e , still property of the 23 Petitioner husband's mother's est a e . 24 We first deal with the Qi estion of whether the 25 amount deducted from the former pr m perty of Anne Talda, th e Heritage Reporting corporation (202) 628-4$88 5 1 mother for the Petitioner husband, whether one half those 2 amounts are deductible by the Petitioners . 3 Respondent maintains th t those amounts not having 4 been inventoried in the filings i the Probate Court of the 5 State of Ohio, and the inventory of having been made final 6 until 2004, that the deduction ca not be maintained in 2003 . 7 The Court determines th t in fact the property was 8 divested in 2003, that the proper y was divested an d 9 considered to be the property of the Petitioner husband and 10 his sister at the time it was div sted, and that the failure 11 to account for the property in the Probate Court in 2004 is 12 irrelevant to the deductibility of those amounts in 2003 . 13 So the Court finds that those amounts are deductible in 14 2003 . 15 This leaves the question, both with respect t o 16 those amounts and the other amount in question, whether the 17 amount of documentation is suffici nt and whether th e 18 Petitioner is entitled to the dedu tions as claimed . 19 First, the Court determi es that the amount s 20 claimed are based upon good faith aluations in accord with 21 Treas Reg Section 1 .170A-13(f)(7) . And, therefore, the only 22 question with respect to the valua ion that remains i s 23 whether the substantiation is adegZate for purposes o f 24 Section 170 and whether any amounts are not allowable unde r 25 Section 170(e), as those amounts include amounts in exces s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4 88 6 1 of basis for tangible property given to a charity for 2 purposes other than use by the charity . 3 With respect to the substantiation question, th e 4 Court finds Respondent's position is inconsistent with Treas 5 Reg Section 1 .170A-13(b)(1)(iii), which reads as follows : 6 A receipt is not required if the contribution i s 7 made in circumstances where it is impractical to obtain 8 a receipt (e .g . by depositing property at a charity' s 9 unattached drop site) . In such case, however, th e 10 taxpayer shall maintain reliable written records with 11 respect to each item of donated property that include 12 the information required by paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 13 this section . 14 Based upon that regulation and the Court's reading 15 of Section 170, the Court finds that the receipts i n 16 question are in conformity with Section 170 and do support 17 the deductions in question . Leavi g only the question of 18 what portion of the deductions in question are no t 19 deductible because of the operation of Section 170(b) . 20 The Court, in reliance upon Stockwell v 21 Commissioner , TC Memo 2007-149 ; an Kendrix v Commissioner , 22 TC Memo 2006-9, determines that th amount that is no t 23 deductible based upon the applicat'on of 170(e) is $100 . 24 So with the exception of $19, $80 and $100, the 25 amounts based upon the stipulated vidence in the record a s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488 7 1 cataloged previously in this opinion, are allowable . 2 A Rule 155 computation will be necessary to 3 determine the appropriate tax liability . 4 This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact 5 and opinion in this case . 6 (Whereupon, at 1 :53 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 7 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-41888