Contents

§ 9.28 PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONSactually reclaim a portion of the stock previously conveyed to their sons, and ourdecision on the question of valuation in a gift tax suit is not binding upon thesons, who are not parties to this action.” 632 The sons, the court added, “may yetenforce the gifts.” 633There is another line of law, captured by this quotation: “The purpose ofCongress in providing deductions for charitable gifts was to encourage gifts forcharitable purposes; and in order to make such purposes effective, there must bea reasonable probability that the charity actually will receive the use and benefitof the gift, for which the deduction is claimed.” 634 A dissenting opinion in a TaxCourt case stitched these aspects of the case law together in an attempt to defeatcharitable contributions that the dissenter viewed as caused by an increase invalue of property facilitated by the court majority. The dissent concluded thatthe “possibility of an increased charitable deduction serves to discourage [theIRS] from collecting tax on the transaction because any attempt to enforce the taxdue on the transaction is of no advantage to the fisc.” 635 It argued that the charityinvolved would never be able to benefit from the gifts, and characterized thecharitable deductions as “against public policy” and “plainly wrong.” 636632 Id.633 Id.634 Hamm v. Commissioner, 20 T.C.M. (CCH) 1814, 1838 (1961), aff’d, 325 F.2d 934 (8th Cir. 1963).635 McCord v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 358, 429 (2003).636 Id. at 427. 353