Contents

§ 9.23 PARTIAL INTERESTSpurpose, the contribution of stock subject to a voting agreement was eligiblefor the charitable contribution deduction, because the donor’s interestin the stock was not divided to avoid the partial interest rule. 554 )• An irrevocable assignment to a charity of the cash surrender value of lifeinsurance, with the donor retaining the right to designate the beneficiaryand to assign the balance of the policy subject to the charity’s right to thecash surrender value. 555As an illustration, a contribution of the right to use property that the donorowns, such as a contribution of a rent-free lease, is treated as a contribution of lessthan the person’s entire interest in the property. 556 Likewise, if a person contributesan interest in motion picture films, but retains the right to make reproductionsof the films and exploit the reproductions commercially, the contribution isregarded as one that is less than the person’s entire interest in the property. 557 Inboth instances, the contribution is not deductible.Another example involved the contribution to a tax-exempt university of alicense to use a patent, with the donor retaining the right to license the patent toothers. The IRS analogized this arrangement to the rent-free lease and the partialinterest in motion picture films referenced above, in that the license did not constitutethe donor’s entire interest in the patent. This gift was ruled to be one of anondeductible partial interest, with the IRS observing that the result would havebeen the same had the donor retained any other substantial right in the patent,such as a gift whereby the patent (or license to use the patent) was contributedsolely for use in a particular geographic area while the donor retained the rightto use the patent (or license) in other geographic areas. 558If, as of the date of a gift, a transfer of property for charitable purposes maybe defeated by the performance of some act or the happening of some event, acharitable deduction is not allowable unless the possibility that the act or eventwill occur is so remote as to be negligible. 559 In application of this rule, the IRS heldthat a deduction was not allowable for a contribution of a patent to a tax-exemptuniversity on the condition that an individual, a faculty member of the institutionand an expert in the technology covered by the patent, continue to be amember of the faculty of the university during the remaining life of the patent. 560If the individual ceased to be a member of the university’s faculty before thepatent expired, the patent was to revert to the donor. The patent was to expire 15years after the date of the contribution. On the date of the gift, the likelihood thatthe individual would cease to be a member of the faculty of the university beforethe patent expired was not so remote as to be negligible.In one case, a gift was made of the long-term capital gains portions of commoditiesfutures contracts to a charitable organization. The donors retained a554 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200108012.555 Rev. Rul. 76-143, 1976-1 C.B. 63.556 Reg. § 1.170A-7(a)(1). See § 9.18.557 Reg. § 1.170A-7(b)(1)(i). See § 15.3.558 Rev. Rul. 2003-28, 2003-11 I.R.B. 594.559 Reg. § 1.170A-7(a)(3).560 Rev. Rul. 2003-28, 2003-11 I.R.B. 594. 343