Contents

TIMING OF CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONSgift tax exclusion 16 in both years, the consequence was—from the IRS’s viewpoint—themaking of gifts of $20,000 to each donee in 1986. The IRS sought toimpose the gift tax on these gifts.As noted at the outset, the general rule is that a gift is complete when thedonor has so parted with dominion and control as to leave him or her with nopower to change its disposition. This determination is generally a matter of statelaw. The personal representative argued, on the basis of language in the powerof attorney, that the gifts were perfected in 1985, when the checks were deliveredto the donees and deposited in their accounts. The IRS contended that, under thelaw of the state, a gift by check is complete only after the check is presented forpayment and accepted by the drawee bank; its position was that the gifts couldhave been revoked. On this point, the court initially followed state law. Becausethe drawee bank did not accept the checks for payment until January 2, 1986, thecourt found that the gift was incomplete as of the close of 1985. That is, the courtheld that the donor retained dominion and control over the checks until theywere accepted by the bank in 1986.The court then considered the applicability of the relation-back doctrine.Under this doctrine, the payment of the checks in one year (here, 1986) relatesback to the delivery and deposit of the checks in the previous year (here, 1985).The IRS argued that this doctrine should not be applied in cases other than thoseinvolving charitable gifts. The court reviewed the various cases on the point andconcluded that there is “no reason for refusing to apply the relation-back doctrineto noncharitable gifts where the taxpayer is able to establish: (1) The donor’sintent to make a gift, (2) unconditional delivery of the check, and (3) presentmentof the check within the year for which favorable tax treatment is sought andwithin a reasonable time of issuance.” 17 The court wrote that the “practical realitiesof everyday commerce” warrant this result. 18Thus, because the court was willing to apply the relation-back doctrine inconnection with these facts, and because the checks were presented for paymentin 1985 and they were promptly paid, the acceptance of the checks by the draweebank in 1986 related back to the deposit of them in 1985. Therefore, the first set ofgifts was treated as annual exclusion gifts for 1985, so that no taxes were duewith respect to them.Nonetheless, the general rules concerning gifts apply. Thus, the IRS declaredthat “a gift is not consummated by the mere delivery of the donor’s own checkor note. The gift of a check does not become complete until it is paid, certified, oraccepted by the drawee, or is negotiated for value to a third person.” 19 For example,in one instance, when checks were written immediately prior to an individual’sdeath, there were inadequate funds in the account, and the checks were notpresented for payment until approximately eight months after death. The valueof the noncharitable gift of the checks was held by the IRS to be includible in thedecedent’s estate. 2016 See § 8.2(h).17 Metzger Estate v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 204, 215 (1993).18 Id.19 Rev. Rul. 67-376, 1967-2 C.B. 351.20 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 8706011. 174