For additional information concerning this Alert, please contact: The information contained herein is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Ernst & Young LLP to the reader. The reader also is cautioned that this material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader's specific circumstances or needs, and may require consideration of non-tax and other tax factors if any action is to be contemplated. The reader should contact his or her Ernst & Young LLP or other tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Ernst & Young LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein. Copyright © 1996 – 2024, Ernst & Young LLP All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP. EY US Tax News Update Master Agreement | EY Privacy Statement Charitable Gifts of Stock: Timing and Documentation Continue to be Critical When Selling a BusinessA recent Tax Court case affirms the importance of timing and documentation when planning a charitable stock donation before a business sale. Prior to selling a business, small business owners often consider donating their company stock to charity. If executed correctly, donating stock prior to a business sale may reduce capital gains while allowing owners a charitable contribution deduction. In Estate of Hoensheid et al. v. Commissioner , (No. 18606-19; T.C. Memo. 2023-34) the Court determined the timeline of events associated with the transfer of stock and subsequent sale of the business resulted in the petitioner significantly underreporting capital gains. The Court held that by delaying the gift until the transaction was essentially finalized, the petitioner avoided recognition of realized income under the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. The Court’s decision also highlighted the petitioner’s failure to secure a qualified appraisal given that the stock gift exceeded $500,000. The Timeline of the CaseIn 2014, the petitioner (now deceased) and his two brothers equally owned all the outstanding shares of Commercial Steel Treating Corporation (CSTC). The brothers were grandchildren of the founder. In the fall of 2014, the brothers began to explore a potential sale of CSTC and established a target sale price. On April 1, 2015, a private equity firm submitted a letter of intent to acquire CSTC for a price more than the original target price. On April 23, the brothers signed a nonbinding letter of intent with the buyer. The next month, on May 22, the brothers signed an affidavit indicating their intent to complete the transaction and sell CSTC. During negotiations, in mid-April, the petitioner expressed to his financial advisors his intent to donate a portion of his CSTC stock to Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, a tax-exempt, charitable organization with a donor-advised fund program. On June 1, after the terms of the CSTC sale were negotiated and agreed upon, an advisor to the petitioner emailed Fidelity Charitable a letter of understanding describing the planned stock donation. The petitioner sent a donation letter to Fidelity Charitable, which the tax-exempt entity confirmed on June 11. However, the petitioner did not send Fidelity Charitable the CSTC stock certificate at this time. Over the next month, the terms of the sale were finalized, and the petitioner delivered the CSTC stock certificate to Fidelity Charitable on July 13. The sale of CSTC closed on July 15, 2015. On his 2015 return, the petitioner reduced the amount of his recognized gain to reflect the stock transfer and took a charitable contribution deduction. The return included a completed Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, with an attachment titled “CSTC Fidelity Gift Fund Valuation.” The form reported the donation date as June 11, 2015. Anticipatory Assignment of IncomeThe anticipatory assignment of income doctrine prevents taxpayers from transferring, or assigning, realized income to another taxpayer before actual receipt to avoid income recognition. The Court determined the petitioner effectively realized income from the CSTC sale before the July 15 closing date because of evidence (including a fixed sales price) supporting that the CSTC sale transaction was virtually certain. Based on Michigan state law, the petitioner’s resident state, determining the validity of a gift requires three steps: - donor intent to make the gift
- actual or constructive delivery of the subject matter of the gift
- donee acceptance
The Court concluded that although a valid gift was executed on July 13, 2015, the terms of the CSTC sale were fixed before the stock delivery resulting in an unreported gain on sale of CSTC. Qualified AppraisalThe Court acknowledged the validity of the gift on July 13, 2015, but denied the charitable contribution deduction. Among other requirements, contributions of property exceeding $500,000 require a qualified appraisal to substantiate the deduction. The petitioner’s gift of CSTC shares was valued at over $3 million dollars in June 2015. An appraiser signed the completed Form 8283; however, the Court determined the appraisal did not meet the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 170(f)(11)(D). Specifically, the Court cited the following: the valuation was not completed for federal income tax purposes; the appraisal included an incorrect date of transfer; the appraisal date was considered premature; the appraisal did not sufficiently describe the method for the valuation; it was not signed by the appraiser; it did not include the appraiser’s qualifications; the appraisal did not describe the property in sufficient detail; and the appraisal did not include an explanation of the specific basis for the valuation. Important RemindersThis case provides two important reminders. First, the importance of completing charitable gifts of stock prior to selling a business. In this case, the Court determined that the stock transfer (two days before the business sale closing) was made after the sale transaction was agreed upon, essentially eliminating all the petitioner’s risk. No bright-line rule exists, but donations must occur before finalizing the terms of the business sale, including, for example, signing a letter of intent or other sales contract. Second, make sure the appraisal conforms to the applicable rules. A review of the rules compared to the components of the appraisal prior to filing the return can save a valuation deduction. There are other important rules to follow as well, including the necessary components of the Form 8283. Stay up-to-date on the latest tax news and views. We're Here to Help- Firm Culture
- What Sets Us Apart?
- Commitment to Community
- Diversity and Inclusion
- Freeman Foundation
- Trial College
- Professionals
- Accounting Defense
- Business Litigation
- Business Divorce Litigation
- Civil Litigation
- Fiduciary Litigation
- Minority Shareholder Litigation
- Partnership Litigation
- Digital Asset & Cryptocurrency Law
- Nonprofits & Exempt Organizations
- Outside General Counsel
- Tax Litigation
- Conservation Easement Defense
- Criminal Tax Defense
- FBAR Penalty Defense
- International & Offshore Tax Compliance
- IRS Penalty Defense
- IRS Collections Defense
- Micro-Captives
- Streamlined
- State Local Tax
- Tax Court Litigation
- Tax Shelter Litigation
- Tax Promoter Defense
- White-Collar
- Cyber Crime Defense
- Civil RICO Litigation
- Forensic Accounting and Investigations
- Healthcare Fraud
- Intellectual Property
- Money Laundering
- Securities Fraud
- Accounting Firms
- Construction
- Cross-Border
- Family Offices
- Finance and Banking
- Government Sector
- Investment Funds
- Manufacturing
- Private Equity
- Real Estate
- Startups and Emerging Companies
- Trusts & Estates
- INTERNATIONAL TAX SYMPOSIUM 2021
- INTERNATIONAL TAX SYMPOSIUM 2022
- Recognition
- Insights Blog
- Treaty Resources
- Partnership Representatives and BBA Resources
- Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Law Resources
Tax Court in Brief | Estate of Hoenshied v. Commissioner | Anticipatory Assignment of Income, Charitable Contribution Deduction, and Qualified AppraisalsShare this article. - Texas supreme court litigation blogs
- The tax court in brief blogs
- Tax litigation blogs
- White-collar blogs
- Cross-border tax blogs
Freeman LawFreeman Law is a tax, white-collar, and litigation boutique law firm. We offer unique and valued counsel, insight, and experience. Our firm is where clients turn when the stakes are high and the issues are complex. The Tax Court in Brief – April 3rd – April 7th, 2023Freeman Law ’s “ The Tax Court in Brief ” covers every substantive Tax Court opinion, providing a weekly brief of its decisions in clear, concise prose. For a link to our podcast covering the Tax Court in Brief, download here or check out other episodes of The Freeman Law Project . Tax Litigation: The Week of April 3rd, 2022, through April 7th, 2023Estate of Hoenshied v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2023-34 | March 15, 2023 | Nega, J. | Dkt. No. 18606-19 Summary: In this 49-page opinion the Tax Court addresses a deficiency arising from the charitable contribution of appreciated shares of stock in a closely held corporation to a charitable organization that administers donor-advised funds for tax-exempt purposes under section 501(c)(3). The contribution in issue was made near contemporaneously with the selling of those shares to a third party. The timeline (truncated heavily for this blog) is as follows: On June 11, 2015, the shareholders of the corporation in issue unanimously ratified the sale of all outstanding stock of the corporation. Immediately following the shareholder meeting, the corporation’s board of directors unanimously approved Petitioner’s request to be able to transfer a portion of his shares to Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, a tax-exempt charitable organization under section 501(c)(3). Thereafter, the corporation and the purchaser of shares continued drafting and revising the Contribution and Stock Purchase Agreement. On July 13, 2015, Fidelity Charitable first received a stock certificate from Petitioner. On July 14, 2015, the Contribution and Stock Purchase Agreement was revised to specify that Petitioner contributed shares to Fidelity Charitable on July 10, 2015, and on July 15, 2015, the Contribution and Stock Purchase Agreement was signed and the transaction was funded. Fidelity Charitable, having provided an Irrevocable Stock Power as part of the transaction, received $2,941,966 in cash proceeds from the sale, which was deposited in Petitioner’s donor-advised fund giving account. On November 18, 2015, Fidelity Charitable sent Petitioner a contribution confirmation letter acknowledging a charitable contribution of the corporate shares and indicating that Fidelity Charitable received the shares on June 11, 2015. In its 2015 tax return, Petitioner did not report any capital gains on the shares contributed to Fidelity Charitable but claimed a noncash charitable contribution deduction of $3,282,511. In support of the claimed deduction, a Form 8283 was attached to the return. Petitioner’s 2015 tax return was selected for examination. The IRS issued to Petitioners a notice of deficiency, determining a deficiency of $647,489, resulting from the disallowance of the claimed charitable contribution deduction, and a penalty of $129,498 under section 6662(a). Key Issues: - Whether and when Petitioners made a valid contribution of the shares of stock?
- Whether Petitioners had unreported capital gain income due to their right to proceeds from the sale of those shares becoming fixed before the gift?
- Whether Petitioners are entitled to a charitable contribution deduction?
- Whether Petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) with respect to an underpayment of tax?
Primary Holdings: (1) Petitioners failed to establish that any of the elements of a valid gift was present on June 11, 2015. No evidence was presented to credibly identify a specific action taken on June 11 that placed the shares within Fidelity Charitable’s dominion and control. Instead, the valid gift of shares was made by effecting delivery of a PDF of the certificate to Fidelity Charitable on July 13. (2) Yes. None of the unresolved contingencies remaining on July 13, 2015 were substantial enough to have posed even a small risk of the overall transaction’s failing to close. Thus, Petitioners, through the doctrine of anticipatory assignment of income, had capital gains on the sale of the 1,380 appreciated shares of stock, even though Fidelity Charitable received the proceeds from that sale. (3) No, Petitioners failed to show that the charitable contribution met the qualified appraisal requirements of section 170. The appraiser was not shown to be qualified, per regulations, at trial or in the appraisal itself, and the appraisal did not substantially comply with the regulatory requirements. “The failure to include a description of such experience in the appraisal was a substantive defect. . . . Petitioners’ failure to satisfy multiple substantive requirements of the regulations, paired with the appraisal’s other more minor defects, precludes them from establishing substantial compliance.” In addition, Petitioners failed to establish reasonable cause for failing to comply with the appraisal requirements “because petitioner knew or should have known that the date of contribution (and thus the date of valuation) was incorrect.” Thus, the IRS’s determination to disallow the charitable contribution deduction is sustained. (4) No. While Petitioners did not have reasonable cause for their failure to comply with the qualified appraisal requirement, their liability for an accuracy-related penalty was a separate analysis, and the IRS did not carry the burden of proof. Petitioners did not follow their professional’s advice to have the paperwork for the contribution ready to go “well before the signing of the definitive purchase agreement.” But, Petitioners adhered to the literal thrust of the advice given: that “execution of the definitive purchase agreement” was the firm deadline to contribute the shares and avoid capital gains (even if that proved to be incorrect advice under the circumstances). Key Points of Law: Gross Income. Gross income means “all income from whatever source derived,” including “[g]ains derived from dealings in property.” 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(3). In general, a taxpayer must realize and recognize gains on a sale or other disposition of appreciated property. See id. at § 1001(a)–(c). However, a taxpayer typically does not recognize gain when disposing of appreciated property via gift or charitable contribution. See Taft v. Bowers , 278 U.S. 470, 482 (1929); see also 26 U.S.C. § 1015(a) (providing for carryover basis of gifts). A taxpayer may also generally deduct the fair market value of property contributed to a qualified charitable organization. See 26 U.S.C. § 170(a)(1); Treas. Reg. 16 § 1.170A-1(c)(1). Contributions of appreciated property are thus tax advantaged compared to cash contributions; when a contribution of property is structured properly, a taxpayer can both avoid paying tax on the unrealized appreciation in the property and deduct the property’s fair market value. See, e.g. , Dickinson v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2020-128, at *5. Donor-Advised Fund. The use of a donor-advised fund further optimizes a contribution by allowing a donor “to get an immediate tax deduction but defer the actual donation of the funds to individual charities until later.” Fairbairn v. Fid. Invs. Charitable Gift Fund , No. 18-cv-04881, 2021 WL 754534, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021). Two-Part Test to Determine Charitable Contribution of Appreciated Property Followed by Sale by Donee. The donor must (1) give the appreciated property away absolutely and divest of title (2) “before the property gives rise to income by way of a sale.” Humacid Co. v. Commissioner , 42 T.C. 894, 913 (1964). Valid Gift of Shares of Stock. “Ordinarily, a contribution is made at the time delivery is effected.” Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-1(b). “If a taxpayer unconditionally delivers or mails a properly endorsed stock certificate to a charitable donee or the donee’s agent, the gift is completed on the date of delivery.” Id. However, the regulations do not define what constitutes delivery, and the Tax Court evaluates applicable state law for the threshold determination of whether donors have divested themselves of their property rights via gift. See, e.g. , United States v. Nat’l Bank of Com. , 472 U.S. 713, 722 (1985). In determining the validity of a gift, Michigan law, for example (and as applied in Estate of Hoensheid ), requires a showing of (1) donor intent to make a gift; (2) actual or constructive delivery of the subject matter of the gift; and (3) donee acceptance. See Davidson v. Bugbee , 575 N.W.2d 574, 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). Present Intent. The determination of a party’s subjective intent is necessarily a highly fact-bound issue. When deciding such an issue, the Tax Court must determine “whether a witness’s testimony is credible based on objective facts, the reasonableness of the testimony, the consistency of statements made by the witness, and the demeanor of the witness.” Ebert v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2015-5, at *5–6. If contradicted by the objective facts in the record, the Tax Court will not “accept the self-serving testimony of [the taxpayer] . . . as gospel.” Tokarski v. Commissioner , 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Delivery. Under Michigan law, the delivery requirement generally contemplates an “open and visible change of possession” of the donated property. Shepard v. Shepard , 129 N.W. 201, 208 (Mich. 1910). Manually providing tangible property to the donee is the classic form of delivery. Manually providing to the donee a stock certificate that represents intangible shares of stock is traditionally sufficient delivery. The determination of what constitutes delivery is context-specific and depends upon the “nature of the subject-matter of the gift” and the “situation and circumstances of the parties.” Shepard , 129 N.W. at 208. Constructive delivery may be effected where property is delivered into the possession of another on behalf of the donee. See, e.g. , In re Van Wormer’s Estate , 238 N.W. 210, 212 (Mich. 1931). Whether constructive or actual, delivery “must be unconditional and must place the property within the dominion and control of the donee” and “beyond the power of recall by the donor.” In re Casey Estate , 856 N.W.2d 556, 563 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). If constructive or actual delivery of the gift property occurs, its later retention by the donor is not sufficient to defeat the gift. See Estate of Morris v. Morris , No. 336304, 2018 WL 2024582, at *5 (Mich. Ct. App. May 1, 2018). Delivery of Shares. Retention of stock certificates by donor’s attorney may preclude a valid gift. Also, a determination of no valid gift may occur where the taxpayer instructs a custodian of corporate books to prepare stock certificates but remained undecided about ultimate gift. In some jurisdictions, transfer of shares on the books of the corporation can, in certain circumstances, constitute delivery of an inter vivos gift of shares. See, e.g. , Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 51 A.2d 584, 594 (Del. Ch. 1947); Chi. Title & Tr. Co. v. Ward , 163 N.E. 319, 322 (Ill. 1928); Brewster v. Brewster , 114 A.2d 53, 57 (Md. 1955). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has stated that transfer on the books of a corporation constitutes delivery of shares of stock, apparently as a matter of federal common law. See Lawton v. Commissioner , 164 F.2d 380, 384 (6th Cir. 1947), rev’g 6 T.C. 1093 (1946); Bardach v. Commissioner , 90 F.2d 323, 326 (6th Cir. 1937), rev’g 32 B.T.A. 517 (1935); Marshall v. Commissioner , 57 F.2d 633, 634 (6th Cir. 1932), aff’g in part, rev’g in part 19 B.T.A. 1260 (1930). The transfers on the books of the corporation were bolstered by other objective actions that evidenced a change in possession and thus a gift. See Jolly’s Motor Livery Co. v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1957-231, 16 T.C.M. (CCH) 1048, 1073. Acceptance. Donee acceptance of a gift is generally “presumed if the gift is beneficial to the donee.” Davidson , 575 N.W.2d at 576. Anticipatory Assignment of Income. The anticipatory assignment of income doctrine is a longstanding “first principle of income taxation.” Commissioner v. Banks , 543 U.S. 426, 434 (2005). The doctrine recognizes that income is taxed “to those who earn or otherwise create the right to receive it,” Helvering v. Horst , 311 U.S. 112, 119 (1940), and that tax cannot be avoided “by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised,” Lucas v. Earl , 281 U.S. 111, 115 (1930). A person with a fixed right to receive income from property thus cannot avoid taxation by arranging for another to gratuitously take title before the income is received. See Helvering , 311 U.S. at 115–17; Ferguson , 108 T.C. at 259. This principle is applicable, for instance, where a taxpayer gratuitously assigns wage income that the taxpayer has earned but not yet received, or gratuitously transfers a debt instrument carrying accrued but unpaid interest. A donor will be deemed to have effectively realized income and then assigned that income to another when the donor has an already fixed or vested right to the unpaid income. See Cold Metal Process Co. v. Commissioner , 247 F.2d 864, 872–73 (6th Cir. 1957), rev’g 25 T.C. 1333 (1956). The same principle is often applicable where a taxpayer gratuitously transfers shares of stock that are subject to a pending, prenegotiated transaction and thus carry a fixed right to proceeds of the transaction. See Rollins v. United States , 302 F. Supp. 812, 817–18 (W.D. Tex. 1969). Determining Anticipatory Assignment of Income. In determining whether an anticipatory assignment of income has occurred with respect to a gift of shares of stock, the Tax Court looks to the realities and substance of the underlying transaction, rather than to formalities or hypothetical possibilities. See Jones v. United States , 531 F.2d 1343, 1345 (6th Cir. 1976) (en banc); Allen v. Commissioner , 66 T.C. 340, 346 (1976). In general, a donor’s right to income from shares of stock is fixed if a transaction involving those shares has become “practically certain to occur” by the time of the gift, “despite the remote and hypothetical possibility of abandonment.” Jones , 531 F.2d at 1346. The mere anticipation or expectation of income at the time of the gift does not establish that a donor’s right to income is fixed. The Tax Court looks to several other factors that bear upon whether the sale of shares was virtually certain to occur at the time of a purported gift as part of the same transaction. Relevant factors may include (1) any legal obligation to sell by the donee, (2) the actions already taken by the parties to effect the transaction, (3) the remaining unresolved transactional contingencies, and (4) the status of the corporate formalities required to finalize the transaction. Corporate Formalities. Also relevant is the status of the corporate formalities necessary for effecting the transaction. See Estate of Applestein , 80 T.C. at 345–46 (finding that taxpayer’s right to sale proceeds from shares had “virtually ripened” upon shareholders’ approval of proposed merger agreement). Under Michigan law, a proposed plan to exchange shares must generally be approved by a majority of the corporation’s shareholders. Formal shareholder approval of a transaction has often proven to be sufficient to demonstrate that a right to income from shares was fixed before a subsequent transfer. However, such approval is not necessary for a right to income to be fixed, when other actions taken establish that a transaction was virtually certain to occur. See Ferguson , 104 T.C. at 262–63. Charitable Contribution Deduction. Section 170(a)(1) allows as a deduction any charitable contribution (as defined) payment of which is made within the taxable year. “A charitable contribution is a gift of property to a charitable organization made with charitable intent and without the receipt or expectation of receipt of adequate consideration.” Palmolive Bldg. Invs., LLC v. Commissioner , 149 T.C. 380, 389 (2017). Section 170(f)(8)(A) provides that “[n]o deduction shall be allowed . . . for any contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer substantiates the contribution by a contemporaneous written acknowledgement of the contribution by the donee organization that meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).” For contributions of property in excess of $500,000, the taxpayer must also attach to the return a “qualified appraisal” prepared in accordance with generally accepted appraisal standards. 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(11)(D) and (E). Contemporaneous Written Acknowledgement (“CWA”). A CWA must include, among other things, the amount of cash and a description of any property contributed. 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(8)(B). A CWA is contemporaneous if obtained by the taxpayer before the earlier of either (1) the date the relevant tax return was filed or (2) the due date of the relevant tax return. Id. at § 170(f)(8)(C). For donor-advised funds, the CWA must include a statement that the donee “has exclusive legal control over the assets contributed.” 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(18)(B). These requirements are construed strictly and do not apply the doctrine of substantial compliance to excuse defects in a CWA. Qualified Appraisal for Certain Charitable Contributions. Section 170(f)(11)(A)(i) provides that “no deduction shall be allowed . . . for any contribution of property for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed unless such person meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), as the case may be.” Subparagraph (D) requires that, for contributions for which a deduction in excess of $500,000 is claimed, the taxpayer attach a qualified appraisal to the return. Section 170(f)(11)(E)(i) provides that a qualified appraisal means, with respect to any property, an appraisal of such property which—(I) is treated for purposes of this paragraph as a qualified appraisal under regulations or other guidance prescribed by the Secretary, and (II) is conducted by a qualified appraiser in accordance with generally accepted appraisal standards and any regulations or other guidance prescribed under subclause (I). The regulations provide that a qualified appraisal is an appraisal document that, inter alia, (1) “[r]elates to an appraisal that is made” no earlier than 60 days before the date of contribution and (2) is “prepared, signed, and dated by a qualified appraiser.” Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i). Qualified Appraisal Must Include: Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii) requires that a qualified appraisal itself include, inter alia: (1) “[a] description of the property in sufficient detail for a person who is not generally familiar with the type of property to ascertain that the property that was appraised is the property that was (or will be) contributed;” (2) “[t]he date (or expected date) of contribution to the donee;” (3) “[t]he name, address, and . . . identifying number of the qualified appraiser;” (4) “[t]he qualifications of the qualified appraiser;” (5) “a statement that the appraisal was prepared for income tax purposes;” (6) “[t]he date (or dates) on which the property was appraised;” (7) “[t]he appraised fair market value . . . of the property on the date (or expected date) of contribution;” and (8) the method of and specific basis for the valuation. Qualified Appraiser. Section 170(f)(11)(E)(ii) provides that a “qualified appraiser” is an individual who (I) has earned an appraisal designation from a recognized professional appraiser organization or has otherwise met minimum education and experience requirements set forth in regulations, (II) regularly performs appraisals for which the individual receives compensation, and (III) meets such other requirements as may be prescribed . . . in regulations or other guidance. An appraiser must also demonstrate “verifiable education and experience in valuing the type of property subject to the appraisal.” The regulations add that the appraiser must include in the appraisal summary a declaration that he or she (1) “either holds himself or herself out to the public as an appraiser or performs appraisals on a regular basis;” (2) is “qualified to make appraisals of the type of property being valued;” (3) is not an excluded person specified in paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of the regulation; and (4) understands the consequences of a “false or fraudulent overstatement” of the property’s value. Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(c)(5)(i). The regulations prohibit a fee arrangement for a qualified appraisal “based, in effect, on a percentage . . . of the appraised value of the property.” Id. at subpara. (6)(i). Substantial Compliance with Qualified Appraisal Requirements. The qualified appraisal requirements are directory, rather than mandatory, as the requirements “do not relate to the substance or essence of whether or not a charitable contribution was actually made.” See Bond v. Commissioner , 100 T.C. 32, 41 (1993). Thus, the doctrine of substantial compliance may excuse a failure to strictly comply with the qualified appraisal requirements. If the appraisal discloses sufficient information for the IRS to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of a valuation, the Tax Court may deem the requirements satisfied. Bond , 100 T.C. at 41–42. Substantial compliance allows for minor or technical defects but does not excuse taxpayers from the requirement to disclose information that goes to the “essential requirements of the governing statute.” Estate of Evenchik v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 2013-34, at *12. The Tax Court generally declines to apply substantial compliance where a taxpayer’s appraisal either (1) fails to meet substantive requirements in the regulations or (2) omits entire categories of required information. Reasonable Cause to Avoid Denial of Charitable Contribution Deduction. Taxpayers who fail to comply with the qualified appraisal requirements may still be entitled to charitable contribution deductions if they show that their noncompliance is “due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.” 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(11)(A)(ii)(II). This defense is construed similarly to the defense applicable to numerous other Code provisions that prescribe penalties and additions to tax. See id. at § 6664(c)(1). To show reasonable cause due to reliance on a professional adviser, the Tax Court generally requires that a taxpayer show (1) that their adviser was a competent professional with sufficient expertise to justify reliance; (2) that the taxpayer provided the adviser necessary and accurate information; and (3) that the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser’s judgment. See Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner , 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), aff’d , 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002). “Unconditional reliance on a tax return preparer or C.P.A. does not by itself constitute reasonable reliance in good faith; taxpayers must also exercise ‘[d]iligence and prudence’.” See Stough v. Commissioner , 144 T.C. 306, 323 (2015) (quoting Estate of Stiel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-278, 2009 WL 4877742, at *2)). Section 6662(a) Penalty. Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) imposes a 20% penalty on any underpayment of tax required to be show on a return that is attributable to negligence, disregard of rules or regulations, or a substantial understatement of income tax. Negligence includes “any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply” with the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6662(c), or a failure “to keep adequate books and records or to substantiate items properly,” Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-3(b)(1). An understatement of income tax is “substantial” if it exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000. 26 U.S.C. § 6662(d)(1)(A). Generally, the IRS bears the initial burden of production of establishing via sufficient evidence that a taxpayer is liable for penalties and additions to tax; once this burden is met, the taxpayer must carry the burden of proof with regard to defenses such as reasonable cause. Id. at § 7491(c); see Higbee v. Commissioner , 116 T.C. 438, 446–47 (2001). The IRS bears the burden of proof with respect to a new penalty or increase in the amount of a penalty asserted in his answer. See Rader v. Commissioner , 143 T.C. 376, 389 (2014); Rule 142(a), aff’d in part, appeal dismissed in part , 616 F. App’x 391 (10th Cir. 2015); see also RERI Holdings I, LLC v. Commissioner , 149 T.C. 1, 38–39 (2017), aff’d sub nom. Blau v. Commissioner , 924 F.3d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 2019). As part of the burden of production, the IRS must satisfy section 6751(b) by producing evidence of written approval of the penalty by an immediate supervisor, made before formal communication of the penalty to the taxpayer. Reasonable Cause Defense to Section 6662(a) Penalty. A section 6662 penalty will not be imposed for any portion of an underpayment if the taxpayers show that (1) they had reasonable cause and (2) acted in good faith with respect to that underpayment. 26 U.S.C. § 6664(c)(1). A taxpayer’s mere reliance “on an information return or on the advice of a professional tax adviser or an appraiser does not necessarily demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith.” Treas. Reg. § 1.6664-4(b)(1). That reliance must be reasonable, and the taxpayer must act in good faith. In evaluating whether reliance is reasonable, a taxpayer’s “education, sophistication and business experience will be relevant.” Id. para. (c)(1). Insights: Going forward, this opinion of Estate of Hoenshied v. Commissioner will likely be a go-to source for any practitioner involved in a taxpayer’s proposed transfer of corporate shares (or other property) to a donor-advised fund or other charitable organization as part of a buy-sell transaction that is anywhere close in time to the proposed donation. Tax Court Litigation Attorneys Need assistance litigating in the U.S. Tax Court? Freeman Law’s tax attorneys are experienced litigators with trial-tested litigation skills and in-depth substantive tax knowledge, having collectively litigated hundreds of cases before the U.S. Tax Court. Our tax controversy lawyers have extensive experience in Tax Court matters involving partnership audits and litigation under both the TEFRA and BBA regimes, international tax penalties, foreign trusts , valuation, reasonable compensation disputes, unreported income, fraud penalties , other tax penalties, any many other matters. We draw on our experience and wealth of tax knowledge to advise and guide clients through the entire tax controversy process, building the right strategy to resolve tax controversies from day one. Schedule a consultation or call (214) 984-3000 to discuss your Tax Court concerns or questions. Join Our Mailing List:Get social:. MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS - Law.com Pro
- Law.com Pro Mid-Market
- Global Leaders In Law
- Global Leaders In Law Advisers
- Private Client Global Elite
MEDIA BRANDS - Law.com Radar
- American Lawyer
- Corporate Counsel
- National Law Journal
- Legal Tech News
New York Law Journal - The Legal Intelligencer
- The Recorder
- Connecticut Law Tribune
- Daily Business Review
- Daily Report
- Delaware Business Court Insider
- Delaware Law Weekly
- New Jersey Law Journal
- Texas Lawyer
- Supreme Court Brief
- Litigation Daily
- Deals & Transactions
- Law Firm Management
- Legal Practice Management
- Legal Technology
- Intellectual Property
- Cybersecurity
- Law Journal Newsletters
- Analyst Reports
- Diversity Scorecard
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Latham & Watkins
- Baker McKenzie
- Verdict Search
- Law.com Compass
- China Law & Practice
- Insurance Coverage Law Center
- Law Journal Press
- Lean Adviser Legal
- Legal Dictionary
- Law Catalog
- Expert Witness Search
- Recruiters Directory
- Editorial Calendar
Legal Newswire- Lawyer Pages
- Law Schools
- Women in Influence (WIPL)
- GC Profiles
- How I Made It
- Instant Insights
- Special Reports
- Resource Center
- LMA Member Benefits
- Legal Leaders
- Trailblazers
- Expert Perspectives
- Lawjobs.com
- Book Center
- Professional Announcements
- Asset & Logo Licensing
Content Source Content Type About Us | Contact Us | Site Map Advertise | Customer Service | Terms of Service FAQ | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2021 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved. - Law Topics Litigation Transactional Law Law Firm Management Law Practice Management Legal Technology Intellectual Property Cybersecurity Browse All ›
- Surveys & Rankings Amlaw 100 Amlaw 200 Global 200 NLJ 500 A-List Diversity Scorecard Browse All ›
- Cases Case Digests Federal Court Decisions State Court Decisions
- People & Community People & Community Q&A Career Annoucements Obituaries
- Judges & Courts Part Rules Judicial Ethics Opinions Court Calendar Court Notes Decision - Download Court Calendar - Download
- Public Notice & Classifieds Public Notices & Classifieds Place a Public Notice Search Public Notices Browse Classifieds Place a Classified
- All Sections Events In Brief Columns Editorials Business of Law NY Top Verdicts Instant Insights Special Sections The Newspaper Special Supplements Expert Witness Search Lawjobs Book Center CLE Center Video Sitemap
Donors’ Loss of Charitable Tax Deduction … and They Incurred Income Tax To BootIn his Estate Planning and Philanthropy column, Conrad Teitell discusses the recent case of Patricia and Kevin Keefer, whose charitable contribution was disallowed by the IRS. The case is a good example of how careful you need to be with charitable contributions. October 21, 2022 at 12:00 PM 6 minute read Share with EmailThank you for sharing. Lady Bracknell’s classic line from Wilde’s 1895 play could be said to apply to a similar situation that Patricia and Kevin Keefer found themselves in involving their charitable contribution. A double whammy. To be taxed on the appreciation element of a charitable contribution under the “anticipatory, assignment of income” doctrine may be regarded as a misfortune. But to then lose the charitable deduction for the resulting deemed cash gift (not the property interest intended) and not have a receipt meeting the contemporaneous written acknowledgment (CWA) requirements looks like carelessness. Want to continue reading? Become an ALM Digital Reader for Free!Benefits of a digital membership. - Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
- Access to the entire ALM network of websites
- Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
- Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
- Search by a wide range of topics
Register Now Already have an account? Sign In Now *May exclude premium content You Might LikeSupreme Court Review: Title VII, Retaliatory Intent and Exemption from ArbitrationBy David E. Schwartz and Emily D. Safko Must a Notice of Default Instruct the Tenant 'How To Cure?' Reconciling a Dichotomy Under the Case LawBy Thomas C. Lambert and Steven Shackman Federal Issue Not Substantial Enough for RemovalBy Edward M. Spiro and Christopher B. Harwood Service of Process by EmailBy Joel R. Brandes Law Firms MentionedTrending StoriesThe Hype Behind Harvey: How the Stealthy Startup Is Raising Industry Eyebrows Legaltech News After Getting ‘Approached All the Time’ for Mergers, 2 NY Law Firms Combine The Hype Behind Harvey: How Firms Are Using the Gen AI Startup Associate Bonuses: Will Others Follow This Trial Firm's Lead? The American Lawyer As New Chair Takes Reins of Winston, He Wants to Do Things a Little Differently - 25 Years of the Am Law 200: Is Size as a Strategy a Winning Formula?
- People, Places & Profits, Part III: Are Law Firm Financial Metrics Keeping Pace With Inflationary Growth?
- The State of Diversity in Big Law: Get a Sneak Peek on the 2024 Diversity Scorecard Results
Featured FirmsPresented by BigVoodoo More From ALMThe New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York. The Daily Report is honoring those attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession. Consulting Magazine identifies consultants that have the biggest impact on their clients, firms and the profession. Our client, one of the premier family law boutiques in Chicago, is seeking to add a family law attorney to support their growing practice. ... Widener University is currently seeking an Assistant Dean for Career Development at the Delaware Law School. Reporting to the Dean of the L... June-August 2024 Environmental and Land Use - Associate Attorney (1-3 years) Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo is acc... Professional Announcement Subscribe to New York Law JournalDon't miss the crucial news and insights you need to make informed legal decisions. Join New York Law Journal now! Already have an account? Sign In - McGuireWoods LinkedIn
- McGuireWoods Facebook
- McGuireWoods Instagram
Timing Is Critical for Gift of Appreciated Stock to Avoid Capital Gain From Sale of CompanyBusiness owners contemplating selling their companies often look to their tax advisers for options to reduce the potential tax impact upon sale. One option routinely considered is having the owner contribute a portion of the appreciated stock to a charitable organization before the transaction closes to avoid income taxes on the donated shares. This leads to a critical question: How far in advance of the closing must the charitable contribution occur? On March 15, 2023, the Tax Court issued an opinion concluding that donating stock two days before closing on a third-party sale transaction was clearly too late to avoid tax. The Tax Court declined to specify a “bright line” deadline for making a donation and instead focused on the substance of the underlying transactions. All in all, these taxpayers paid income taxes on the recognized gain on the shares they no longer owned and didn’t get the charitable tax deduction for failure to meet the strict substantiation rules. In the Estate of Scott M. Hoensheid, et al. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2023-34), the taxpayers were clear at the outset that they wanted to “wait as long as possible to pull the trigger” on donating shares valued at more than $3 million to charity because they wanted to make sure the sale of the company was going to occur. They were also clear that the purpose for donating was to avoid paying income taxes on any gain associated with the donated shares. To reach these stated goals, the taxpayers worked closely with their tax/estate planning attorney and a financial adviser to structure the stock sale transaction hoping for an $80 million target price and to find a charity that was willing to accept the stock and then participate in the third-party sale transaction without much hassle. In early 2015, the taxpayers’ financial adviser started soliciting bids for the company and received significant interest from private equity firms. In mid-April 2015, the taxpayers’ tax attorney advised them that “the transfer [to the charity] would have to take place before there is a definitive agreement in place.” Concurrently, the taxpayers began working with Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, a large tax-exempt organization that serves as a sponsoring organization with regard to establishing donor-advised funds, to accept the donation of company stock. Fidelity Charitable provided a similar warning to the taxpayers that the gift must take place before any purchase agreement is executed to avoid the Internal Revenue Service raising the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. Anticipatory Assignment of Income Doctrine The anticipatory assignment of income doctrine has been around since at least the 1930s. See Lucas v. Earl , 281 U.S. 111 (1930). Under this doctrine, income is taxed “to those who earn or otherwise create the right to receive it.” See Helvering v. Horst , 311 U.S. 112, 119 (1940). The courts have been clear that taxpayers cannot avoid tax by entering into anticipatory arrangements and contracts where a person with a fixed right to receive income from property arranges for another person to gratuitously take title before the income is actually received. The person who gratuitously takes title usually has a lower effective income tax rate or does not pay tax at all on recognized gains (i.e., many charitable organizations). If the doctrine is triggered, the donor is deemed to have effectively realized the income and then assigned that income to another. This results in the donor paying tax on the income that he or she did not actually receive. For charitable donations, the donor likely is unable to force the charity to rescind the transaction, causing the taxpayer to use personal funds to pay the taxes on the income received by the charity. Unfortunately, the Tax Court’s ruling in Estate of Hoensheid did not specify a bright line deadline for making a donation to give donors assurance that the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine would not apply. Instead, to determine who has a fixed right to the income, the Tax Court stated that it looks at the realities and substance of the underlying transactions rather than formalities or hypothetical possibilities. Factors considered include (i) the donee’s obligation to sell the shares, (ii) the acts of the parties to effect the sale transactions, (iii) unresolved sale contingencies as of the date of the donation and (iv) corporate formalities necessary to effect the transaction. In reviewing the substance of the underlying transactions in the Estate of Hoensheid case, the Tax Court found that Fidelity Charitable did not have any obligation to sell the shares, which was a factor in favor of the taxpayers. However, the court was not persuaded by the taxpayers’ arguments that the donation occurred over a month before the transaction closed. Importantly, nine days before the transaction closed, the taxpayers’ attorney indicated that the amount of shares being transferred was unclear and that the stock assignment had not been executed. In the end, the court concluded that Fidelity Charitable accepted the gift only two days before the stock sale transaction closed when one of the taxpayers’ advisers emailed a copy of the company stock certificate issued in the name of Fidelity Charitable. As of the date of contribution, the Tax Court opined that there were no unresolved sale contingencies and noted that the shareholders had emptied the company’s working capital by distributing cash to the owners (not including Fidelity Charitable). Finally, the Tax Court looked at the corporate formalities. While the taxpayers argued that negotiations were ongoing all the way through the closing date of July 15, 2015, the Tax Court said the signing of the definitive purchase agreement on that date was purely ministerial and any decision not to sell as of the date of donation was remote and hypothetical. These facts led to the conclusion that the transaction was “too far down the road to enable [the taxpayers] to escape taxation on the gain attributable to the donated shares.” When considering the enumerated factors, donors should be very careful to avoid creating an informal, prearranged understanding with the charity that would constitute an obligation for the charity to agree to sell. Additionally, the donor must bear some risk at the time of the contribution that the sale will not close. In the Estate of Hoensheid , the taxpayers sought to eliminate any risk that the sale would not go through, and as a result, the Tax Court agreed with the Internal Revenue Service imposing the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine to force the taxpayers to recognize gain on the contributed shares as a result of the later sale to the private equity firm. The key takeaways from this case are: (i) waiting until shortly before a purchase agreement is executed significantly increases the risk that the Internal Revenue Service will assert the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine; and (ii) the Internal Revenue Service and the courts will look closely at the transaction documents, intent of the donor, correspondence between the donor and his or her advisers, and the records of the charity to determine the date of the gift and the application of this doctrine. This does not mean that donors must make such gifts before a transaction is contemplated, or even before a nonbinding letter of intent is executed. This case is simply a cautionary tale to remind taxpayers that the Internal Revenue Service will closely scrutinize donations of stock in advance of a stock sale transaction. Maybe one day the Internal Revenue Service or the courts will provide a “bright line,” but for now caution is key. Loss of Charitable Deduction After reaching its conclusion related to the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine, the Tax Court turned to the Internal Revenue Service’s argument that the taxpayers should not be permitted a charitable deduction for the donated shares for failing to comply with the rigid substantiation requirements. For a more complete discussion of these requirements, see McGuireWoods’ Nov. 10, 2022, alert . As a reminder, when the Internal Revenue Service challenges a charitable deduction on procedural grounds, it is not disputing the fact that a charitable contribution was made. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service admits that the contribution was made but nonetheless challenges the taxpayers’ ability to claim a tax deduction. Here, the Internal Revenue Service argued that the taxpayers failed to engage a qualified appraiser and the appraisal did not satisfy the basic requirements for a qualified appraisal. A qualified appraiser is someone who has obtained an appraisal designation from a recognized professional organization or otherwise has sufficient education and experience, and who regularly performs appraisals for compensation. The qualified appraisal must include all of the following: - A description of the contributed property in sufficient detail, including the physical condition of any real or tangible property.
- The valuation effective date. For qualified appraisals prepared before the date of contribution, the valuation effective date must be no earlier than 60 days before the date of contribution and no later than the actual date of contribution. For qualified appraisals prepared after the contribution, the valuation effective date must be the date of contribution.
- The fair market value of the contributed property on the valuation effective date.
- The date or expected date of contribution.
- The terms of any agreement relating to the use, sale or other disposition of the contributed property. This includes any restrictions on the donee’s ability to dispose of the property, any rights to income from the property or rights to vote any contributed securities.
- The name, address and taxpayer identification number of the qualified appraiser or the partnership or employer who employs the qualified appraiser.
- The qualifications of the appraiser, including education and experience.
- A statement that the appraisal was prepared for income tax purposes.
- The method of valuation used (e.g., income approach, market-data approach, replacement-cost-less-depreciation approach) and the specific basis for the valuation (e.g., specific comparable sales, statistical sampling).
- A description of the fee arrangement between the donor and qualified appraiser.
- This declaration: “I understand that my appraisal will be used in connection with a return or claim for refund. I also understand that, if there is a substantial or gross valuation misstatement of the value of the property claimed on the return or claim for refund that is based on my appraisal, I may be subject to a penalty under Section 6695A of the Internal Revenue Code, as well as other applicable penalties. I affirm that I have not been at any time in the three-year period ending on the date of the appraisal barred from presenting evidence or testimony before the Department of Treasury of the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 330(c).”
- The signature of the qualified appraiser and the appraisal report date. The qualified appraisal must be signed and dated no earlier than 60 days before the date of contribution and no later than the due date for the tax return (including extensions) on which the deduction is claimed.
In Estate of Hoensheid , the taxpayers decided to use the services of their financial adviser that worked on the sales transaction to save the costs of having an outside expert prepare the appraisal. This cost-saving move ended up actually costing the taxpayers their entire $3.3 million claim of a charitable deduction for the donated stock. Because the taxpayers’ financial adviser did not have any appraisal certifications, did not hold himself out as an appraiser, and prepares valuations only once or twice a year in order to solicit business for his financial advisory firm, the Tax Court agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that the taxpayer failed to engage a qualified appraiser. The Tax Court reviewed the Internal Revenue Service’s arguments that the contents of the appraisal attached to the tax return were deficient. The Tax Court agreed and indicated that the appraisal (i) included the incorrect date of contribution, (ii) did not include the statement that it was prepared for federal income tax purposes, (iii) included a premature date of appraisal, (iv) did not sufficiently describe the method for the valuation, (v) was not signed by the appraiser, (vi) did not include the appraiser’s qualifications as an appraiser, (vii) did not describe the donated property in sufficient detail and (viii) did not include an explanation of the specific basis for the valuation. While the taxpayers did not dispute that the appraisal had defects, they sought to rely on the “substantial compliance” doctrine to excuse these stringent substantiation requirements. The Tax Court analyzed the substantial compliance argument but rejected it, stating that the appraisal failed with regard to multiple substantive requirements of the applicable regulations. As a result, no deduction for the contribution of shares to Fidelity Charitable was allowed. Again, it is critical for taxpayers and their advisers to closely review the Treasury regulations that set forth the substantiation requirements to minimize the risk that the Internal Revenue Service challenges a charitable deduction on procedural grounds. Email DisclaimerPlease note that unsolicited emails and attached information sent to McGuireWoods or a firm attorney via this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not a McGuireWoods client, do not send us any confidential information. We may not respond to unsolicited emails and do not consider them or attached information confidential. That means we may disclose unsolicited emails and attachments to third parties, and your unsolicited communications will not prevent any lawyer in our firm from representing a party and using the unsolicited communications against you. By clicking “accept” you confirm that you have read and understand this notice. Make A PaymentHoensheid: assignment of income and gift substantiation. It is fairly common to make charitable gifts of property prior to a sale transaction. Often, those gifts are of real property or closely-held business interests. This is for good reason. Structured properly, not only do donors generally receive a charitable income tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the donated property, they also avoid any capital gains on the sale of that property. [1] The double benefit of both avoiding capital gain and receiving a full fair market value deduction can be quite powerful. [2] As stated above, however, the gift must be structured properly in order to obtain these benefits. Two of the important areas in this regard are: (1) avoidance of an assignment of income; and (2) proper gift substantiation. We have previously written about cases where these issues have arisen. [3] A recent Tax Court opinion once again addresses these issues, [4] this time possibly contradicting IRS guidance [5] and a previous binding opinion of the full Tax Court. [6] Commercial Steel Treating Corp. (“CTSC”) was owned by three brothers. After one of the brothers announced his plans to retire in the Fall of 2014, the three brothers decided to solicit bids for a sale of the company. In so doing, they engaged a financial advisory firm which began the process in early 2015. Once that process started, the following sequence of events unfolded: - April 1, 2015: HCI Equity Partners (“HCI”) submitted a draft Letter of Intent (“LOI”) to acquire CTSC.
- Mid April 2015: Mr. Hoensheid, one of the owner/brothers and the taxpayer in this case, begins discussing the possibility of establishing a donor advised fund (“DAF”) to make a charitable contribution of CTSC stock prior to the anticipated sale to take advantage of the type of planning described above (i.e. double benefit of fair market value charitable deduction and avoidance of capital gains on the donated shares).
- April 16, 2015: Mr. Hoensheid’s attorney emailed that “the transfer would have to take place before there is a definitive agreement in place.” [7]
- April 23, 2015: LOI between HCI and CTSC was executed.
- May 22, 2015: CTSC executed an Affidavit of Acquired Person for the Federal Trade Commission representing that CTSC had “a good faith intention of completing the transaction.”
- Valuation date of CTSC submitted in substantiation of charitable deduction.
- Hoensheid emailed his attorney that “I do not want to transfer the stock until we are 99% sure we are closing.”
- Shareholders and Directors meetings ratifying sale of all stock of CTSC to HCI.
- CTSC submitted to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs an amendment to its Articles of Incorporation per request from HCI.
- Stock Purchase Agreement submitted by Mr. Hoensheid’s attorney to Fidelity Charitable for execution (dated effective June 15, 2015).
- Shareholders approve Mr. Hoensheid’s transfer of an unspecified number of CTSC shares to Fidelity.
- June 12, 2015: HCI’s investment committee and managing partners approved acquisition of CTSC.
- HCI formed a new Delaware corporation to serve as the acquirer of CTSC.
- Hoensheid sends an email that he is “not totally sure of the shares being transferred to the charitable fund yet.”
- July 7: CTSC determined to distribute payments to employees pursuant to a Change of Control Bonus Plan and almost all remaining cash to its shareholders.
- Email from Mr. Hoensheid’s financial advisor that “it looks like Scott has arrived at 1380 shares.”
- Hoensheid delivered the stock certificate transferring shares in CTSC to his attorney.
- Revised draft Stock Purchase Agreement circulated with missing date upon which Mr. Hoensheid transferred shares to Fidelity Charitable.
- CTSC paid bonuses to employees under Change of Control Bonus plan.
- Redline draft of Stock Purchase Agreement circulated indicating acceptance of all substantive changes.
- Printout list of CTSC shareholders indicating gift to Fidelity Charitable from Mr. Hoensheid on July 10, 2015.
- PDF stock certificate submitted by email to Fidelity Charitable showing the stock transfer from Mr. Hoensheid to Fidelity Charitable.
- July 14: CTSC distributed almost all remaining cash to its shareholders.
- July 15, 2015: Transaction closing and funding.
There was some dispute between the taxpayers and the IRS about the date of the charitable gift. The taxpayers argued the stock was gifted on July 10, 2015, the date upon which Mr. Hoensheid decided to transfer 1380 shares of CTSC to Fidelity Charitable, executed a stock certificate to that effect, and delivered the stock certificate to his attorney. However, the IRS argued, and the Tax Court agreed, that the transfer did not occur until July 13, 2015. The reason was that, citing to Michigan law [8] , there was no deliver of the gift to the charity until the PDF stock certificate was sent [9] and no acceptance of the gift until Fidelity Charitable’s email on July 13, 2015, acknowledging same. [10] As a result, for purposes of the tax dispute, July 13, 2015, was the date of the charitable donation. Assignment of IncomeThe assignment of income doctrine recognizes income as taxed “to those who earn or otherwise create the right to receive it.” [11] Particularly in the charitable donation context, a donor will be deemed “to have effectively realized income and then assigned that income to another when the donor has an already fixed or vested right to the unpaid income.” [12] This analysis looks “to the realities and substance of the underlying transaction, rather than to formalities or hypothetical possibilities.” [13] The form of a charitable donation will not be respected if the donor does not: (1) give the appreciated property away absolutely and divest of title (2) before the property gives rise to income by way of a sale. [14] Before analyzing Mr. Hoensheid’s donation through the relevant tests for assignment of income, the Tax Court addressed arguments raised by Mr. Hoensheid regarding existing guidance. In addition to other sources, this is particularly important in citing to Rev. Rul. 78-197 and Rauenhorst [15] . In Rev. Rul. 78-197 the IRS acquiesced in the Palmer [16] decision where a donor transferred shares in a closely-held corporation he controlled to a private foundation he also controlled, followed by a redemption of those shares by the corporation. The IRS argued the substance of the transaction was a redemption followed by a cash contribution since the taxpayer had a “prearranged plan” of redeeming the shares at the time of the contribution. After the Tax Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, the IRS issued Rev. Rul. 78-197 stating that “the Service will treat the proceeds of a redemption of stock under facts similar to those in Palmer as income to the donor only if the donee is legally bound, or can be compelled by the corporation to surrender the shares for redemption ” (emphasis added). Certainly, regardless of any other facts, there was nothing to legally compel a closing of the sale of CTSC stock to HCI, or otherwise compel such closing, at the date of Mr. Hoensheid’s charitable gift. In Palmer , the Tax Court held that certain charitable gifts made after a redemption of stock was “imminent” did not constitute an assignment of income. In Rauenhorst , the Tax Court noted that the IRS attempted to “devise a ‘bright-line’ test which focuses on the donee’s control over the disposition of the appreciated property” by adopting Rev. Rul. 78-197. Although Revenue Rulings do not bind the Tax Court, they do bind the IRS. When there was an LOI, but no binding obligation to sell, therefore, the IRS was precluded in Rauenhorst from arguing there as an assignment of income when the facts in the case were not distinguishable from those in Rev. Rul. 78-197. The facts in Rauenhorst bear similarities to those in Hoensheid . In Rauenhorst , there was a signed LOI, a resolution authorizing executing an agreement of sale, and a valuation report indicating there was little chance the transaction would not close. However, in Rauenhorst , and cited in Hoensheid , the Tax Court noted “we have indicated our reluctance to elevate the question of donee control to a talisman for resolving anticipatory assignment of income” and that the donee’s power to reverse the transaction is “only one factor to be considered in ascertaining the ‘realities and substance’ of the transaction.” In Rauenhorst and Hoensheid , the Tax Court stated that “the ultimate question is whether the transferor, considering the reality and substance of all the circumstances, had a fixed right to income in property at the time of the transfer.” [17] As such, notwithstanding that the Tax Court in Rauenhorst held the IRS to its position in Rev. Rul. 78-197, the court stated that “in the appropriate case we could disregard a ruling or rulings as inconsistent with our interpretation of the law.” As such, while Hoensheid could be seen as inconsistent with Rauenhorst , it also could be seen as consistent insofar as the Tax Court kept the door open for the Hoensheid result in the opinion it issued in Rauenhorst . [18] In making that determination the Tax Court in Hoensheid looked at factors including: (1) “any legal obligation to sell by the donee”, (2) “the actions already taken by the parties to effect the transaction”, (3) “the remaining unresolved transactional contingencies”, and (4) “the status of the corporate formalities required to finalize the transaction.” Applying these factors, while conceding that there was no obligation of Fidelity Charitable to sell shares at the time of contribution, the Tax Court found there to be an assignment of income. The court cited to the number of acts which had taken place at the time of the donation which rendered the transaction a “foregone conclusion.” Relevant facts included that, on the date of the charitable donation, corporate formalities of approving the transaction had occurred, bonuses payable to employees resulting from the transaction had been paid, dividends had been paid to such an extent that CTSC no longer remained a viable going concern, and all substantive terms of the transaction had been fully negotiated. Ultimately, the court stated that, by July 13, 2015, “the transaction had simply ‘proceeded too far down the road to enable petitioners to escape taxation on the gain attributable to the donated shares.’” SubstantiationAlthough the scope of this writing is to address the concept of anticipatory assignment of income and the Hoensheid opinion, particularly as it relates to prior authorities and guidance, it is important to note the substantiation issues which ultimately cost the taxpayers any charitable deduction. Even finding an assignment of income, the taxpayers would be entitled to charitable donation equal to the fair market value of the shares gifted. They merely would be forced to recognized their share of gain from the sale transaction. However, having failed to satisfy the charitable donation substantiation requirements, the taxpayers lost the deduction in full. Relevant in Hoensheid , gifts of property of more than $500,000 require taxpayers to obtain a qualified appraisal from a qualified appraiser to attach to the taxpayer’s income tax return for the year of the gift. [19] Although the scope of what constitutes a “qualified appraisal” from a “qualified appraiser” is beyond the scope of this writing, in Hoensheid , the taxpayer failed primarily as a result of obtaining an appraisal from someone unqualified to render valuations for purposes of substantiating charitable gifts. The Tax Court notes that the requirement for the appraiser to be qualified is “the most important requirement” of the regulations. [20] The appraiser in Hoensheid only infrequently performed valuations, did not hold himself out as an appraiser, and held no certifications from any professional appraiser organization. Based on these and other factors, it was clear that the appraiser in Hoensheid was not a “qualified appraiser” as contemplated by the applicable statute and regulations. By all accounts, he was used because he charged no fee for the valuation, instead offering to perform the valuation under the fees paid to the financial advisory firm handling the sale transaction which is where he was employed. In addition to the appraiser lacking the proper qualifications, the valuation report contained a number of deficiencies which rendered it not to constitute a “qualified appraisal” either. One of such problems was using a June 1, 2015, valuation date when intervening events between that date and the date of the gift, including the substantial bonus and dividend distributions, should have caused the value of CSTC to materially change. Although “substantial compliance” can be sufficient in satisfying regulatory substantiation requirements [21] , the Tax Court found that Mr. Hoensheid failed to substantially comply due to his failure to engage a qualified professional to complete the valuation along with the numerous errors could not be concluded to satisfy the requirements of substantial compliance. However, as a silver lining, in avoiding a 20% underpayment penalty [22] , Mr. Hoensheid was held to have reasonably relied on his attorney’s advice that the deadline for the charitable donation was the date a definitive agreement is executed. Here, Mr. Hoensheid made a couple of fatal choices. First, he chose to wait until the transaction was 99% sure to close before making the charitable gift. Second, he cut corners by using a free and unqualified appraiser rather than simply paying for a qualified valuation professional. Sure, Mr. Hoensheid’s professional advisors led him to believe he may have had until the closing (the date the purchase agreement would be signed) in order to make the gift. Further, his attorney may have been justified in believing that to constitute the law given Rauenhorst and Rev. Rul. 78-197. However, his own attorney said “any tax lawyer worth [her] fees would not have recommended that a donor make a gift of appreciated stock” so close to the closing. It is understandable that taxpayers desire to wait until they are confident a sale will close before donating equity interests. We encounter that frequently. There is no clear, bright-line date on which the tests as discussed in Hoensheid may apply (as opposed to Rauenhorst and Rev. Rul. 78-197). As such, taxpayers and their planners should look to the timeline in this case and the Tax Court’s discussion in determining when to make charitable gifts in anticipation of a sale. In many cases, closing and purchase agreement execution occur simultaneously as opposed to transactions where a purchase agreement is signed with a number of contingencies and before much of the due diligence or other pre-closing details have been finalized. Extra care is likely needed when there is a contemporaneous execution and closing, as in Hoensheid . While no legally binding document may have been executed, the deal may be a “foregone conclusion” at some point along the spectrum. Of course, beyond the assignment of income issues, we continue to see taxpayers trip up on charitable gift substantiation. [23] Sometimes it is a mere mistake; other times taxpayers try to cut corners and/or save money by not engaging the proper professionals. When large gifts are being made, real value is being donated. The donor will never get those funds back and the costs of complying with the substantiation requirements is typically much less than the value of the deduction, especially when gifts are made in advance of a liquidity event. [1] This presumes a donation of long-term capital gain property to a public charity, generally subject to a limitation on the deduction of 30% of the donor’s adjusted gross income. IRC § 170(b)(1)(C). [2] As an example, a top bracket taxpayer (37% ordinary income tax bracket and 20% capital gains bracket) who donates a $1 million asset with a $200,000 cost basis stands to obtain both an $1M income tax deduction for a benefit of $370,000 and also avoid $800,000 of capital gains for a benefit of $160,000, yielding a combined tax benefit of $530,000. This means the true cost of the $1 million charitable gift was only $470,000. The savings may be more to the extent the net investment income tax and/or state income tax applies. [3] Allen, Charles J., “IRS Continues Aggressive Stance on Charitable Contributions,” Oct. 23, 2018, https://esapllc.com/chrem-case/ ; and Sage, Joshua W., “Gifting Appreciated Stock Before Redemption – Dickinson,” Oct. 6, 2020, https://www.esapllc.com/dickinson-redemption2020/ . [4] Estate of Scott Hoensheid, et ux. v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo 2023-34. [5] Rev. Rul. 78-197. [6] Rauenhorst v. Commissioner , 119 T.C. 157 (2002). [7] These statements were repeated in an email from the taxpayer’s financial advisor on April 20, 2015, and the taxpayer’s attorney on April 21, 2015. [8] Michigan law requires a showing of: (1) donor intent to make a gift; (2) actual or constructive delivery of the subject matter of the gift; and (3) donee acceptance. See Davidson v. Bugbee , 575 N.W.2d 574, 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). [9] Although the stock ledger showing an earlier transfer date could have possibly substantiated delivery, that printout was dated July 13, 2015, meaning the Tax Court could not determine an earlier date upon which CTSC acknowledged the transfer. [10] Again, here, there were communications with Fidelity Charitable showing a July 11, 2015, transfer date but the documentary proof provided to the Tax Court by the taxpayers bore a July 15, 2015, date rather than a production of the earlier original. As such, absent proper proof, the Tax Court could not conclude a July 11, 2015, acceptance date occurred. [11] Helvering v. Horst , 311 U.C. 112, 119 (1940). [12] Cold Metal Process Co. v. Commissioner , 247 F.2d 864, 872-73 (6th Cir. 1957). [13] Jones v. U.S. , 531 F.2d 1343, 1345 (6th Cir. 1976); and Allen v. Commissioner , 66 T.C. 340, 346 (1976). [14] Humacid Co. v. Commissioner , 42 T.C. 894, 913 (1964). [15] See supra Note 6. [16] Palmer v. Commissioner , 62 T.C. 684 (1974), [17] Citing Ferguson v. Commissioner , 108 T.C. 244 (1997). [18] Note also the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Ferguson v. Commissioner , 174 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1999), whereby assignment of income was found where a threshold of a tender of 85% of corporate shares was required prior to any binding obligations to sell when only more than 50% had been transferred at the time of the gift, the court finding there was enough “momentum” to the transaction to make the merger “most unlikely” to fail. This extension of the assignment of income doctrine was specifically refused to be followed by the U.S. District Court in Keefer v. U.S. , 2022 WL 2473369, particularly given that the case was appealable to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. [19] IRC §170(f)(11)(D) and (E), and Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13. [20] Citing Mohamed v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo 2012-152. [21] We have discussed substantial compliance in other writings including, Gray Edmondson, “RERI Revisited on Appeal, $33M Deduction Denial Upheld,” June 5, 2019, https://esapllc.com/reri-appeal/ ; and Devin Mills, “Private Jet Deduction Fails for Lack of Substantiation,” July 26, 2022, https://esapllc.com/izen-jet-2022/ . [22] IRC § 6662 based on any underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return that is attributable to negligence, disregard of rules or regulations, or a substantial understatement of income tax. [23] For a recent article discussing charitable gift substantiation, including substantial compliance, see Sholk, Steven H., “A Guide to the Substantiation Rules for Deductible Charitable Contributions,” 137 J. Tax’n 03 (Dec. 2022). View Full Profile . - Go to content 1
- Go to menu 2
- Go to search 3
- Go to footer 4
- Online Payment
- Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights
- Corporate & Securities
- Environmental
- Fidelity & Surety
- Immigration
- Intellectual Property Enforcement & Litigation
- Intellectual Property Licensing, Transactions & Due Diligence
- Patent Litigation
- Trade Secret
- Trademark & Trade Dress
- Public Finance
- Real Estate
- Real Property Taxation & Incentives
- Redevelopment, Land Use & Zoning
- Securities Enforcement
- Data & Privacy Crisis Management and Regulatory Counseling
- Health Information Privacy & Security
- Trusts & Estates
- White Collar Defense & Investigations
- Alternative Capital
- Automotive Dealership & Franchise Law
- Banking & Finance
- Cannabis Law
- Construction
- Corporate Travel
- Equipment Leasing & Asset Based Lending
- Food & Beverage
- Franchise Law
- Healthcare & Hospital
- Media & Technology
- Privacy & Data Security
- Qualified Opportunity Zones
- Regulatory Affairs
- Renewable Energy & Sustainability
CLIENT ALERTCSG Law Alert: Time is Not on Your Side (At Least for Charitable Gifts of Appreciated Assets)For charitably-minded taxpayers, gifting an appreciated asset can provide a double tax benefit. First, because the asset was gifted before the sale or other disposition of the asset, the taxpayer might avoid a taxable gain, and second, the taxpayer may be able to take a tax deduction for their charitable contribution. However, this strategy is not without risk – and timing is of the essence. In Estate of Hoensheid v. Commissioner , 1 one unlucky taxpayer and his spouse learned this lesson the hard way, which resulted in a taxable gain on the sale of the asset and the denial of the charitable contribution deduction. Mr. Hoensheid and his two brothers each held one-third of the shares in a manufacturing business. When they decided to sell the business, Mr. Hoensheid consulted with his financial advisors and long-time attorney about donating some of his shares in this business to charity and made plans to donate the shares to Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (“Fidelity”). Nervous that the sale would not occur after making the gift, Mr. Hoensheid held on to his shares for as long as possible. Further, he did not specify the number of shares he planned to donate to Fidelity until almost at the closing date of the sale of the business. The relevant dates for the sale of the business and the gift Mr. Hoensheid made on which the IRS based its determination are as follows: 2 - June 11, 2015: The date on which the shareholders (Mr. Hoensheid and his two brothers) approved the sale.
- July 7, 2015: Cash sweep from the business to prepare for closing, pay for employee bonuses on July 10, 2015, and for distribution to the brothers on July 14, 2015.
- On or around July 9, 2015: Finalization of the number of shares that Mr. Hoenseheid intended to gift to Fidelity.
- July 13, 2015: Stock certificates delivered to Fidelity Charitable for the purposes of effectuating the gift.
- July 15, 2015: Final purchase agreement signed and approved by the business’s shareholders and directors.
No one date was dispositive in the Tax Court’s analysis. However, considering all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction, the Tax Court determined that the transaction had moved past the point in time where Mr. Hoensheid could avoid the assignment of income from the sale. ANTICIPATORY ASSIGNMENT OF INCOME DOCTRINE A fundamental concept in income tax law involves the “the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine.” Rooted in early case law, this concept provides that a taxpayer cannot shift their earning of income to avoid income tax if their right to income becomes fixed. 3 A right to income becomes fixed when, “based on the realities and substance of the underlying transaction,” the receipt of income is “practically certain to occur” even if the taxpayer transfers the right before receiving the income. 4 With respect to gifts to charity made before an asset is sold, taxpayers should consider whether a fixed right to income has occurred, which may not be easily discernible. To determine whether a taxpayer’s fixed right to income has occurred before making a gift of an appreciated asset, the Tax Court relies on in the Humacid test, which considers the facts and circumstances of the transaction, and the question revolves around the timing of when the gift was made in relation to the sales transaction timeline. 5 To satisfy the Humacid test, “[t]he donor must (1) give the appreciated property away absolutely and divest title (2) ‘before the property gives rise to income by way of a sale.’” 6 In evaluating the transaction between Mr. Hoensheid and Fidelity, the Tax Court outlined four factors it considered in determining whether the transaction satisfied the Humacid test. These factors included “(1) any legal obligation to sell by the donee, (2) the actions already taken by the parties to effect the transaction, (3) the remaining unresolved transactional contingencies, and (4) the status of corporate formalities required to finalize the transaction.” 7 For the first factor, the Tax Court found that because Fidelity disclaimed any obligation to sell the shares and because there was no finding of a “prearranged understanding” between Mr. Hoensheid and Fidelity to sell, this factor was against an anticipatory assignment of income. For the second factor, the Tax Court found that the July 7, 2015 cash sweep essentially represented that the sale was virtually certain to occur and that the taxpayer’s right to income was fixed when it delivered the stock certificates to Fidelity on July 13, 2015 because the cash sweep rendered the certificates valueless. 8 The Tax Court reasoned that the certificates amounted to “’hollow receptacles’ for conveying the proceeds of the transaction with HCI, ‘rather than an interest in a viable corporation.’” 9 This factor was strongly in favor of Mr. Hoensheid’s fixed right to income. 10 For the third factor, the Tax Court found that only minor revisions had been made to the transaction – none of which were substantial enough to constitute unresolved contingencies that would prevent the sale from closing. This factor also strongly weighed in favor of Mr. Hoensheid’s fixed right to income. 11 Finally, for the fourth factor, the only remaining corporate formality needed to effectuate the sale was formal shareholder approval by written consent, which occurred on July 15, 2015. Because of the brothers’ extensive involvement through the entire transaction, the Tax Court found this act to be a foregone conclusion and determined that this approval was “all but assured as of July 13, 2015.” 12 The Tax Court deemed this act ministerial, which was neutral in its analysis. Weighing these factors, the Tax Court held that Mr. Hoensheid’s right to income was fixed as of July 13, 2015. As of this date, the transaction “had simply proceeded too far down the road to escape taxation on the gain attributable to the donated shares.” 13 Regarding the anticipatory assignment of income, the Tax Court concluded that a donor must bear some risk that the sale will not close to avoid being deemed to have assigned income, which after considering all the facts and circumstances, Mr. Hoensheid failed to do when he delayed transferring his stock shares to Fidelity. 14 As a result of Mr. Hoensheid’s fixed right to income, the Hoensheids should have accounted for the recognized gain from Mr. Hoensheid’s sale of his business shares on their individual income tax return. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTION Despite holding that Mr. Hoensheid recognized gain from the sale of his stock shares, the Tax Court determined that Mr. Hoensheid did make a valid gift to Fidelity under state law. Taxpayers are entitled to take a charitable contribution deduction for valid gifts made to charity; however, the taxpayer must comply with IRS requirements to claim the deduction. These requirements include a contemporaneous written acknowledgment and a qualified appraisal. 15 Contemporaneous Written Acknowledgment For gifts valued over $500,000, the taxpayer must provide a contemporaneous written acknowledgment that substantiates the deduction with the amount of cash and a description of any property contributed. 16 Moreover, for gifts to a donor-advised fund, such as the contribution Mr. Hoensheid made to Fidelity, the taxpayer must include a statement that the donee “has exclusive legal control over the assets contributed.” 17 The Tax Court determined that Mr. Hoensheid satisfied this requirement with the contribution letter that Fidelity issued. Qualified Appraisal In addition to the contemporaneous written acknowledgment, the taxpayer must also provide a “qualified appraisal” for the donated asset. 18 For the IRS, a qualified appraisal must be performed by a qualified appraiser, defined as a credentialed person with experience and education in valuing the type of property subject to the appraisal in question and who regularly performs such appraisals for payment. 19 The appraisal cannot be performed more than 60 days before the date the gift was made. 20 Qualified appraisals further require certain information to meet IRS standards. This information includes a sufficiently detailed description of the property, the date of the gift, information about the appraiser (including their qualifications), statement that the appraisal was prepared for income tax purposes, the date of the appraisal, and the method of and basis for the valuation. 21 Unfortunately, the Hoensheids did not provide a qualified appraisal. The Tax Court noted the following deficiencies in the appraisal they submitted to the IRS: - No statement that the appraisal was being prepared for federal income tax reasons;
- Incorrect date of the contribution of the gift;
- Premature date of the appraisal;
- Insufficient description of the valuation method used by the appraiser;
- No signature by the appraiser or his company;
- No description of the appraiser’s qualifications;
- Insufficient detail of the property subject to the appraisal; and
- No explanation of the specific basis for the valuation.
The Tax Court paid particular attention to the appraiser’s failure to meet the IRS standard for a “qualified” appraiser, reiterating that a qualified appraiser is “the “most important requirement” of the regulations.” 22 Although the Hoensheids’ appraiser had experience as an investment banker, he had no other credentials certifying him as an appraiser and he did not hold himself out publicly as an appraiser. His experience with valuations was limited – performed on occasion and often for free, as was the case here. Finally, the Tax Court addressed the incorrect date of the contribution, which the Hoensheids listed as June 11, 2015 instead of July 13, 2015. Various communications made by Mr. Hoensheid, along with his close involvement in the transaction suggested to the Tax Court that he knew or should have known that June 11, 2015 was not the correct date of the gift. 23 Timing matters for gifts of appreciated assets. Planning to gift appreciated stock is not straightforward and can yield unwelcome results if the transaction is not properly executed. Even then, there is no guarantee because the Tax Court did not extend a bright-line rule that could help taxpayers mitigate their risks with this type of transaction. Given the unsettling outcome of this case, taxpayers should be aware of the risk involved in gifting an appreciated asset so close to its sale. Otherwise, like the Hoensheids, they too, risk forfeiting favorable tax benefits for their charitable gift. 1 Estate of Hoensheid v. Comm’r , T.C. Memo 2023-24. 2 This timeline has been condensed to maintain brevity of this article. 3 Helvering v. Horst , 311 U.S. 112,119 (1940) (recognizing that income is taxed “to those who earn or otherwise create the right to receive it”); Lucas v. Earl , 281 U.S. 111 (1930) (holding that tax cannot be avoided “by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised”). 4 Hoensheid , T.C. Memo 2023-34 at 27 (citing the approach in Jones v. United States , 531 F.2d 1343, 1345-46 (6th Cir. 1976) (en banc)). 5 Humacid v. Comm’r , 42 T.C. 894, 913 (1964). 6 Hoensheid , T.C. Memo 2023-34 at 16. (internal citations omitted) 8 Id. at 31 (“In reality of the transaction, the cash sweeps were thus highly significant conditions precedent to consummating the transaction with HCI.”). 11 Id. at 32. 12 Id. at 33. 13 Id. at 34 (citing Allen v. Comm’r , 66 T.C. 340, 348 (1976). 14 Id. at 33-34. 15 I.R.C. § 170(a)(1). 16 Id. § 170(f)(8)(B). 17 Id. § 170(f)(18)(B). 18 Id. § 170(f)(11). 19 Id. § 170(f)(11)(E)(ii). 20 Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i). 21 Id. § 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii). 22 Hoensheid , T.C. Memo 2023-24 at 40. 23 Id. at 45. Related ServicesRelated news, csg’s david l. schlossberg recognized as a leader in finance by njbiz, the csg law trusts & estates newsletter – february 2024, national business institute: probate boot camp. - CSG Newsroom
- Disclaimer & Policies
- Privacy & Cookies
- Award Methodology
|
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Determining Anticipatory Assignment of Income. In determining whether an anticipatory assignment of income has occurred with respect to a gift of shares of stock, the Tax Court looks to the realities and substance of the underlying transaction, rather than to formalities or hypothetical possibilities.
In determining whether the donating taxpayer has assigned income in these circumstances, one relevant question is whether the prospective sale of the donated stock is a mere expectation or a virtual certainty. "More than expectation or anticipation of income is required before the assignment of income doctrine applies," the Court stated.
If QSBS is gifted in close proximity to a sale, the IRS might claim that the donor stockholder was making an anticipatory assignment of income. ... the IRS concluded in the context of a charitable contribution coupled with a prearranged redemption that the assignment of income doctrine would apply only if the donee is legally bound, or can be ...
Tax Court Guidance on Charitable Contributions and Assignment of Income. Today is the first of two alerts dealing with the Estate of Hoensheid v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2023-34 (2023). In this, the first, the standard for determining whether a taxpayer has made an anticipatory assignment of income is discussed. The ...
Exploring crucial aspects of charitable tax planning: contemporaneous written acknowledgments, qualified appraisals, and anticipatory assignment of income.
More broadly, the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine prevents taxpayers from gratuitously assigning property ripe with income to a third party (usually a charity or relative) with a purpose of having the assignee taxed on the income inherent in the property.
IRS properly denied charitable deduction for partnership interest given to private foundation absent appropriate contemporaneous written acknowledgement. ... If the court finds the contribution was actually an anticipatory assignment of income, the Keefers are nonetheless entitled to a refund of tax, interest and penalties;
IRS may deem your gift an "anticipatory assignment of income" to the charity. As such, you may be required to pay capital gains taxes on the sale by the charity. 2. Business gifts require due diligence by the charity and careful planning by the donor. Many charities will not accept gifts of privately held business
"anticipatory assignment of income" is dependent on the facts and circumstances. Considerations 2. What transfer restrictions apply to Karen and to the charity? Powell's governing documents (i.e., shareholders' agreement, etc.) must be reviewed by the recipient charity to understand whether Karen and her transferees, including the recipient
The IRS selected all the taxpayers' returns for examination and issued notices of deficiency disallowing the charitable deductions based on the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine and for failure to satisfy the substantiation requirement of Section 170. The taxpayers filed petitions in Tax Court, and both parties filed motions for ...
The Tax Court recently addressed what can happen when gifts of appreciated stock to charity occur in close proximity to a sale of a company. Read our article to discover more. ... apply the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine to charge the capital gains tax attributable to the gifted shares to Scott and (2) disallow the charitable ...
Outline of Presentation. What is it? A judicial doctrine that income should be taxed at the source that generated it and cannot be anticipatorily signed to a third party. "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them, and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts ...
Assignment-of-Income Doctrine Precludes Taxpayer's Charitable Deduction. A district court held that a couple could not deduct the contribution of a 4 percent partnership interest to a nonprofit because the donation was an anticipatory assignment of income. The court also concluded that a donor advised fund packet submitted with the taxpayers ...
A recent Tax Court case highlights the importance of completing charitable gifts of stock prior to selling a business. ... the petitioner avoided recognition of realized income under the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. The Court's decision also highlighted the petitioner's failure to secure a qualified appraisal given that the ...
Determining Anticipatory Assignment of Income. In determining whether an anticipatory assignment of income has occurred with respect to a gift of shares of stock, the Tax Court looks to the realities and substance of the underlying transaction, rather than to formalities or hypothetical possibilities.
The anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. Simply put, if a donor gives a long-term appreciated asset to a public charity, the donor gets a charitable deduction for the asset's fair ...
Fidelity Charitable provided a similar warning to the taxpayers that the gift must take place before any purchase agreement is executed to avoid the Internal Revenue Service raising the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine. Anticipatory Assignment of Income Doctrine. The anticipatory assignment of income doctrine has been around since at ...
The IRS argued that the contribution made just before the sale was to close amounted to an anticipatory assignment of income from that sale, thus requiring the taxpayer to recognize the income from the sale rather than merely getting a charitable contribution deduction for the value of this noncash asset (the interest in the partnership).
Substantiation. Although the scope of this writing is to address the concept of anticipatory assignment of income and the Hoensheid opinion, particularly as it relates to prior authorities and guidance, it is important to note the substantiation issues which ultimately cost the taxpayers any charitable deduction.
of private stock to a charity. If the donation is made too late, the Internal Revenue Service may argue that the "anticipatory assignment of income" doctrine applies, in which case the founder will have to pay tax on the gain realized by the charity when it sells the stock received from the founder. In that circumstance, the first benefit
The anticipatory assignment doctrine can arise in connection with an assignment to a qualified char-ity, and the agency exception operates there as well. For example, Patricia, a prominent actress, wished to make a gift to the Beth El Temple, a qualified charity. She was offered a position to perform on a television production for a fee of ...
ANTICIPATORY ASSIGNMENT OF INCOME DOCTRINE. ... receipt of income is "practically certain to occur" even if the taxpayer transfers the right before receiving the income. 4. With respect to gifts to charity made before an asset is sold, taxpayers should consider whether a fixed right to income has occurred, which may not be easily ...
The IRS alleged that the assignment of income doctrine (discussed below) applied to deny the Taxpayer the first benefit, and sought to fully deny the charitable contribution deduction thereby denying the Taxpayer the second benefit.
Federal income tax withholding for 2024 ..... 28 State income tax withholding tables, ... related to charity is set by law and remains at $0.14 per mile. (Notice 2024-08; ... assignment of SUI tax rates will move from Rate Schedule C to Rate Schedule D, with rates ranging from 0.6% to 6.4%. ...