Contents

SPECIAL GIFT SITUATIONSsubstitute limited partners. 570 One of the dissenters in this case (indeed, the trialjudge) faulted the majority’s analysis of the transaction, writing (somewhatreflecting the IRS’s view of these transactions) that, “[u]ndaunted by the facts,well-established legal precedent, and [the agency’s] failure to present sufficientevidence to establish [its] determinations, the majority allow their olfaction todisplace sound legal reasoning and adherence to the rule of law.” 571 Another dissenterwas of the view that the public policy doctrine, or step transaction doctrine,would preclude the gift tax charitable deduction. 572§ 9.25 USED VEHICLESThe IRS, analogizing to A Tale of Two Cities and the Star Wars epic, concluded that“there is a dark side in the Exempt Organizations Universe.” 573 Indeed, the IRSbelieves itself under a siege from evildoers in the realm of charitable organizationsand charitable giving: The agency “in recent years has been confronted witha number of aggressive tax avoidance schemes.” 574There is no question that the IRS has seen considerable creativity in andabout the charitable sector in recent years. Some of this ingenuity has been abusive.Just a few of the techniques confronting the IRS recently have been abusesof charitable remainder trusts, 575 abuses of charitable lead trusts, 576 the explosiverise in the use of donor-advised funds, 577 inappropriate uses of supporting organizations,578 gifts of interests in limited family partnership, 579 and questionablesplit-interest charitable insurance programs. 580 Oddly, however, none of thesebursts of creativity has irked the IRS more than the matter of solicitation of contributionsto charity of used vehicles.The IRS view is that vehicle (mostly car) donation programs constitute a“growing area of noncompliance.” 581 The IRS is not concerned with charities thatoccasionally receive cars by gift and resell them, or those that obtain cars by giftand use them in their programs (such as sheltered workshops) or refurbish themfor the benefit of the needy. What the IRS is principally troubled about is the useof “third party entrepreneurs”—those who receive the cars directly, dispose ofthem (such as by auction or sale to scrap dealers), and pay to the charity a flat feeor set amount (often a small amount) per car. These latter situations the IRS hasdubbed “suspect vehicle donation plans or programs.”570 This distinction led the judge in a concurring opinion to take the position that the charitable gift involved wasa gift of a partial interest that was subject to the gift tax disallowance provision (IRC § 2522(c)(2)). See § 9.22.See McCord v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 358 (2003).571 McCord v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 358, 416 (2003). He concluded: “We are not responsible for protectingthe fisc. Rather, our role and duty are to interpret and adhere to the rule of law—even if uncomfortable withthe result.” Id. at 425.572 Id. at 425–430. See §§ 9.27 and 4.8, respectively.573 IRS Exempt Organization Continuing Professional Education Text for Fiscal Year 2000, Topic P.574 Id.575 See, e.g., § 12.5(e).576 See, e.g., § 16.8.577 See Private Foundations ch. 16 (2002 Cum. Supp.).578 Id. § 15.7.579 See § 9.24.580 See § 17.6.581 IRS Exempt Organization Continuing Professional Education Text for Fiscal Year 2000, Topic T. 346