Contents

OTHER ASPECTS OF DEDUCTIBLE GIVINGagency relationship, so that contributions could be made to the charity by meansof the company. 109§ 10.3 GIFTS FOR THE USE OF CHARITYThe federal tax law provisions concerning charitable giving frequently make reference,in addition to gifts to a charitable organization, to gifts for the use of acharitable organization. The definition of a charitable contribution for federalincome tax law purposes states that it is “a contribution to or for the use of”qualified charitable organizations. 110There is little law on the point. One court had occasion to peruse the legislativehistory of the law that added this phrase to the Internal Revenue Code (in1921) and concluded that the words mean “roughly the equivalent of” the words“in trust for.” 111 In the previous year, the then Bureau of Internal Revenue hadruled that charitable deductions could not be taken for contributions to trusts,community chests, and other types of charitable foundations, on the ground thatthese organizations were not organized and operated for charitable purposesbut merely served as a conduit for contributions to charitable organizations. 112These organizations were common law trusts; legal title to the contributionsremained vested in a trustee that invested the funds prior to disbursement tovarious charitable organizations.The legislative history of this phrase indicates that Congress intended by thislaw change to make contributions in trust for the benefit of charitable organizationseligible for deduction as charitable gifts. 113 Over the intervening years,courts and the IRS have adhered to this interpretation of the words for the use of. 114The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, in connection with an issue asto whether funds transferred by parents to their children while the childrenserved as full-time, unpaid missionaries for a church are deductible as charitablecontributions. Inasmuch as the gifts were not to the church, the argumentadvanced by the parents turned on whether the gifts were for the use of thechurch. The Supreme Court, in reaffirming that the words mean “in trust for,”concluded that the payments were not deductible as charitable contributions. 115The Court observed that while this interpretation of the phrase “does notrequire that the qualified [charitable] organization take actual possession of thecontribution, it nevertheless reflects that the beneficiary must have significantlegal rights with respect to the disposition of donated funds.” 116 The Courtrejected the claim that a charitable deduction should be allowed merely becausethe charitable organization has “a reasonable opportunity to supervise the use109 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 200230005.110 IRC § 170(c), opening clause.111 Rockefeller v. Commissioner, 676 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1982).112 O.D. 669, 3 C.B. 187 (1920).113 See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 350, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1921).114 See, e.g., Danz v. Commissioner, 18 T.C. 454 (1952), aff’d on other grounds, 231 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1955),cert. denied, 352 U.S. 828 (1956); Bowman v. Commissioner, 16 B.T.A. 1157 (1956); Rev. Rul. 53-194, 1953-2 C.B. 128; Rev. Rul. 55-275, 1955-1 C.B. 295.115 Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (1990).116 Id. at 483. 370