Contents

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTSThe IRS did not contest the value of the property used to calculate the charitablededuction. 217 The charity was a qualified charitable donee; 218 the IRS concededthat the donors had the requisite charitable intent. 219 The sole issue beforethe court was whether the donors’ entry into the contract for deed effected acompleted gift of the property during 1994. Framing the issue this way, the courthad to determine (1) whether the interest conveyed was sufficient to constitute acompleted gift, and (2) when the sale and gift were completed. The IRS took theposition that this type of contract did not give rise to a completed gift at the timeit was entered into.State law controls the determination of the nature of the property interestconveyed by one party to another. This law usually is found in pronouncementsby the state’s highest court. The court in this case, following this analysis, concludedthat the purchaser under a contract for deed becomes the equitableowner of the property.The question of whether a sale of property is complete for tax purposes is oneof fact, which is resolved by an examination of all the facts and circumstances.Essentially, the matter comes down to a consideration of when the “benefits andburdens” of ownership shifted. In the case of real property, a sale generally is consideredto have occurred at the earlier of the transfer of legal title or the practicalassumption of these benefits and burdens.The court wrote: “A closed transaction for Federal tax purposes results froma contract of sale which is absolute and unconditional on the part of the seller todeliver to the buyer a deed upon payment of the consideration and by which thepurchaser secures immediate possession and exercises all the rights of ownership.”220 Having written that, the court noted that there can be a delay in thedelivery of the deed and that payment of the purchase price may be deferred byinstallment payments. Ownership of property, observed the court, amounts to a“bundle of rights with respect to the property.” 221In the case, the court sided with the donors. It concluded that the “bundle ofrights that the [charity] received is essentially the same bundle of rights thatwould have been received had the church obtained legal title to the property andgranted a mortgage back” to the donors. 222 The gift was determined to have beenmade in 1994, not 1997.The other situation concerned contributions to a donor-advised fund maintainedby a charitable organization on its Internet Web site. 223 Donors areinformed that contributions to the donor-advised fund are unconditional and irrevocable.They must affirmatively acknowledge that fact by clicking on a specificfield. They are told that ultimate discretion over transfers out of the donoradvisedfund lies with the organization. Recommendations from a donor may befollowed only after the organization conducts the appropriate due diligence. The217 See § 10.1.218 See § 3.3.219 See § 3.1(a).220 Musgrave v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.M (CCH) 341, 344 (2000).221 Id.222 Id.223 See § 3.1(f). 90