Contents

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTSThere are at least three court opinions holding that when a donor retainssole signatory power over a contribution, the donor is not entitled to a charitablecontribution deduction because the gift has not been completed. 47Nonetheless, despite all of the foregoing, one federal court of appeals putthis matter rather starkly, succinctly observing that this is a “particularly confusedissue of federal taxation.” 48 Not content with that, this appellate courtwent on to portray the existing Internal Revenue Code structure on this subjectas being “cryptic,” with the indictment that “neither Congress nor the courtshave offered any very satisfactory definition” of the terms gift or contribution. 49Charity’s Standpoint. The foregoing analysis reviewed the treatment of a paymentas a gift from the standpoint of the (ostensible) contributor. On occasion,however, the issue can arise from the perspective of the recipient. In one suchinstance, a court ruled that contributions made by members of a church congregationto its pastor on “special occasions” were taxable income, rather than tax-freegifts, to the pastor and his spouse. 50 Cash gifts were collected in the sanctuary; thefunds were not recorded in the church’s records. The court observed that the cashtransfers “were facilitated by and through church personnel, and would not have[arisen] absent the . . . [pastor’s and his spouse’s] relationship with the church.” 51Rejecting the contention that the transfers were merely gifts from individuals, thecourt found that the transfers were “initiated, sponsored, collected and distributedby the congregation as an aggregate body”; the funds were held to be “processed”through the congregation. 52 Concluded the court: “The transfers to the[pastor and his spouse] were not detached or disinterested in the same way as anindividual who chooses to send the pastor and his wife ten dollars on a birthdayor during the Christmas season.” 53This characterization of contributions poses problems for churches, schools,and other such organizations when the constituency, or a portion of it, wants toprovide assistance to an individual (member of the clergy, teacher, coach, andthe like) with some additional financial support in the form of “gifts.” One canstill make gifts to others without the funds being income to the recipient. Whenthe effort is orchestrated through the offices of the organization, however, at47 Gookin v. United States, 707 F. Supp. 1156 (N.D. Cal. 1988); Burke v. United States, 88-1 U.S.T.C. 9,391(D. Conn. 1988); Davis v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 806 (1983), aff’d, 767 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1985). Cf. Carterv. United States, 973 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992). In general, see § 3.1(j).48 Miller v. IRS, 829 F.2d 500, 502 (4th Cir. 1987).49 Id. at 502. A charitable gift may be made by means of a payroll deduction program. Rev. Rul. 54-549, 1954-2C.B. 94; Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200307084. An otherwise valid (and deductible) charitable gift may be a fraudulentconveyance that is voidable by creditors or by a bankruptcy trustee. See Bein, “Should Charitable Contributionsby Insolvent Debtors Be Fraudulent Conveyances?” 8 J. Tax’n Exempt Orgs. (no. 4) 162 (Jan./Feb.1997); Bein, “Can Charitable Contributions Be Voidable Fraudulent Conveyances?” 8 J. Tax’n Exempt Orgs.(no. 3) 115 (Nov./Dec. 1996).50 Goodwin v. United States, 870 F. Supp. 265 (S.D. Iowa 1994).51 Id. at 267.52 Id. at 268.53 Id. The “detached or disinterested” phraseology was in reference to the language used by the Supreme Courtin Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 285 (1960). The Goodwin opinion was affirmed at 95-2U.S.T.C. 50,534 (8th Cir. 1995). 64