Articles by Alvin Brown Tax Preparation Offer In Compromise State Offers in Compromise Levy IRS Tax Liens IRS Tax Liens - continued IRS Tax Liens - continued 2 Levy - continued Audit Techniques Guide Congressional Contacts Criminal Investigation D.O.J Criminal Tax Manual Tax Litigation Penalty Installment Agreements Statute of Limitations Frivolous Tax Argument Interest Abatement IRS Misconduct IRS Abuses Tax Fraud Fraud Statutes Bankruptcy Tax Reform Legislation Tax Shelters Tax Court Trust Fund Penalty Legislation Innocent Spouse Relief Important Links
Tax
Shelters
Additional
Information:
IRS Notice 2001-16 FS 2005-11 IRS Notice 2003-47 IRS Notice 2000-61 IRS Notice 2002-21 IRS Notice 2001-45 IRS Notice 2001-51 Announcement 2002-2 IRS Notice 98-5 IRS Notice 99-59 IRS Notice 95-34 IRS Notice 2000-60 Revenue Ruling 99-14 Revenue Ruling 2000-12 Revenue Ruling 2004-12 IRS Notice 95-53 IRS Notice 2002-35 IRS Notice 2003-24 IRS Notice 2003-55 IRS Notice 2003-81 IRS Notice 2003-77 IRS Notice 2004-7 IRS Notice 2004-8 IRS Notice 2004-41 Revenue Ruling 2004-4 Revenue Ruling 2004-20 Announcement 2005-80 Revenue Ruling 2002-3 Revenue Ruling 2002-80 Reg 1.643(a)-8 IRS Settlement Proposal
|
IRS Notice
2004-7

Notice 2004-7
The Internal Revenue Service (
IRS
) is aware that some taxpayers that transfer patents
or other intellectual property to charitable
organizations are claiming charitable contribution
deductions in excess of the amounts to which they
are entitled under §170
of the Internal Revenue Code. In particular, the
IRS
has become aware of purported charitable
contributions of intellectual property in which one
or more of the following issues are present: 1)
transfer of a nondeductible partial interest in
intellectual property; 2) the taxpayer's expectation
or receipt of a benefit in exchange for the
transfer; 3) inadequate substantiation of the
contribution; and 4) overvaluation of the
intellectual property transferred. The purpose of
this notice is to advise taxpayers that, in
appropriate cases, the
IRS
intends to disallow all or part of these improper
deductions and may impose penalties under §6662.
In addition, this notice advises promoters and
appraisers that the
IRS
intends to review promotions of transactions
involving these improper deductions, and that the
promoters and appraisers of the intellectual
property may be subject to penalties under §§6700,
6701,
and 6694.
Section
170(a)(1) allows as a deduction, subject
to certain limitations and restrictions, any
charitable contribution (as defined in §170(c))
that is made within the taxable year.
However, §170(f)(3)
provides generally that no charitable contribution
deduction is allowed for a transfer to a charitable
organization of less than the taxpayer's entire
interest in property. For example, if a donation
agreement states that a transfer to the donee of the
taxpayer's interests in a patent is subject to a
right retained by the taxpayer to manufacture or use
any product covered by the patent, the taxpayer has
transferred a nondeductible partial interest in the
patent. For other examples of nondeductible partial
interests, see Situations 1 and 2 of Rev.
Rul. 2003-28, 2003-11 I.R.B. 594.
Generally, to be deductible as a charitable
contribution under §170,
a transfer to a charitable organization must be a
gift. A gift to a charitable organization is a
transfer of money or property without receipt of
adequate consideration, made with charitable intent.
See U.S. v. American Bar Endowment,
477
U.S.
105, 117-18 (1986) (citing Rev.
Rul. 67-246, 1967-2 C.B. 104, with
approval); Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490
U.S.
680, 690 (1989); and §1.170A-1(h)(1)
and (2) of the Income Tax Regulations. A transfer to
a charitable organization is not made with
charitable intent if the transferor expects a return
commensurate with the amount of the transfer. Hernandez
at 690; see also American Bar Endowment at
116.
If a taxpayer receives a benefit in return for a
transfer to a charitable organization, the transfer
may be deductible as a charitable contribution, but
only to the extent the amount transferred exceeds
the fair market value of the benefit received, and
only if the excess amount was transferred with the
intent of making a gift (a "dual
character" transfer). See American Bar
Endowment at 118 (the taxpayer must "at a
minimum demonstrate that he purposely contributed
money or property in excess of the value of any
benefit he received in return.") In other
words, the taxpayer must establish that it knew at
the time of the transfer that the value of what it
gave was greater than the value of what it received.
See id. In this situation, the burden
is on the taxpayer to show that all or part of the
payment was a charitable contribution. See §1.170A-1(h).
All consideration provided by the charitable
organization (other than benefits disregarded under §1.170A-13(f)(8))
must be taken into account, including non-cash
benefits.
For example, if a donation agreement states that the
donee assumes a taxpayer's liability for a lease of
a research facility, this assumption of liability is
consideration from the donee. Likewise, a donee's
promise to make available to the taxpayer the
results of the donee's research, such as laboratory
notebooks, data, and research files, is
consideration from the donee. Similarly, a
charitable organization's promise to hold a patent
and maintain it for a period of time is
consideration to a taxpayer if the taxpayer is
benefited when others are prevented from purchasing
or licensing the patent. Cf. Rev.
Rul. 2003-28, Situation 3 (taxpayer
received no benefit from restriction on donated
patent). In each of these examples, the taxpayer has
the burden of showing that it knew, at the time of
the transfer, that the value of the donated property
exceeded the value of the consideration it received
from the donee. The taxpayer may deduct no more than
this excess amount.
A charitable contribution is allowable as a
deduction only if substantiated in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Section
170(a)(1) and ( f)(8).
Under §170(f)(8),
a taxpayer must substantiate its contributions of
$250 or more by obtaining from the donee a statement
that includes: (1) a description of any return
benefit provided by the donee; and (2) a good faith
estimate of the benefit's fair market value. (See §1.170A-13
for additional substantiation requirements.) The
IRS
intends, in appropriate cases, to disallow
deductions if the taxpayer fails to comply with the
substantiation requirements. See, e.g., Addis v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 528 (2002).
If all requirements of §170
are satisfied, including those discussed above, and
a deduction is thereby allowed, the amount of the
deduction may not exceed the fair market value of
the contributed property on the date of contribution
(reduced by the fair market value of any
consideration received by the taxpayer). See §1.170A-1(c)(1).
Fair market value is the price at which the property
would change hands between a willing buyer and a
willing seller, neither being under any compulsion
to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge
of relevant facts. Section
1.170A-1(c)(2). For example, the fair
market value of a patent must be determined after
taking into account, among other factors: (1)
whether the patented technology has been made
obsolete by other technology; (2) any restrictions
on the donee's use of, or ability to transfer, the
patented technology (see Rev.
Rul. 2003-28, Situation 3); and (3) the
length of time remaining before the patent's
expiration.
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is Patricia
Zweibel of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Income Tax and Accounting). For further information
regarding this notice, please contact Ms. Zweibel on
(202) 622-5020 (not a toll-free call).
|