Contents

OTHER ASPECTS OF DEDUCTIBLE GIVING• A donor contributed a conservation easement to a historic preservationorganization. The donor claimed a value of $350,000. The IRS assertedthat the value was $70,000. The court found the value to be $130,000. 42• A donor contributed a “façade servitude” to a charitable organization. Thedonor claimed a value of $350,000. The IRS contended that the value was$86,000. The court found the value to be $168,700. 43• A donor contributed interests in a collection of antique stereoscopic negativeglass plates and related items to a university. The donor claimed adeduction for the gift of $1,427,253. The IRS originally asserted that theproperty did not have any value; during the court proceedings, it tried tocompromise at $450,000. The court allowed a deduction of $1,250,000. 44• Two donors contributed certain equipment and spare parts to a university,claiming the value of these items to be $201,000. The court found thevalue to be $157,500. 45 This finding came after the court had previouslyfound the value to be $75,000 46 but was directed by an appellate court torevalue the property. 47• A business corporation contributed a news film library to a university.The donor claimed a tax deduction of $62 million; the IRS asserted a valueof $1.84 million. At trial, the corporation that asserted the value of thelibrary was $35 million (or, alternately, $22.9 million) and the IRS contendedthat the value was $1.35 million (and later $2.02 million). The courtupheld the deduction at $1.84 million. 48 The court nicely summarized thevaluation process:Charitable contribution tax cases characteristically present a battle ofexperts on the issue of the fair market value of the donated property. As istypical in litigation that involves battles by experts in analysis of complexmatters, the information provided by the valuation witnesses of both partieswas skewed to advance the objectives of their respective clients. Plaintiff’sexpert witnesses resolved valuation issues so as to maximize the dollarvalue of the contribution: defendant’s witnesses, on the other hand,attempted to satisfy IRS and Department of Justice interests to minimize theallowable deduction. These recognized but seldom articulated characteristicsare manifest in the record of this case. 49• Participants in a gravesite exchange and contribution program contributed450 gravesites to a church. The court found the value of the propertygiven to be no more than the donor’s costs in acquiring the gravesites. 50• Other participants in a gravesite exchange and contribution program hadtheir charitable contribution deduction confined to basis as well. 5142 Losch v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 909 (1988).43 Nicoladis v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 624 (1988).44 Mast v. Commissioner, 56 T.C.M. (CCH) 1522 (1989).45 Akers v. Commissioner, 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 546 (1992).46 Akers v. Commissioner, 47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1621 (1984).47 Akers v. Commissioner, 798 F.2d 894 (6th Cir. 1986).48 Hearst Corp. v. United States, 93-1 U.S.T.C. 50,303 (Fed. Cl. 1993).49 Id. at 88,187.50 Weiss v. Commissioner, 65 T.C.M. (CCH) 2768 (1993).51 Klavan v. Commissioner, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 68 (1993). 360