Abstract Case Name: Schieber v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo, T.C. Memo 2017-32 (Feb 9, 2017)Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: David W. Schieber and Janet L. Schieber Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Bankruptcy; Defined Benefit Plan; Cancellation of DebtNature of Case: Whether a defined benefit plan is an asset when determining insolvency for the purposes of cancellation of […]
With the rise in mobile payment applications, charitable donations using these platforms are increasing; equally, the use of a conduit between a donor and a charity to solicit and collect donations for the charity’s benefit is growing. If a charity is overfunded or the charitable purpose is no longer available, the conduit is caught holding a pool of designated donations without the ability to contact the donors for permission for a similar or alternate use. Using the Internal Revenue Code requirements, the authority and regulations are not apparent for a charitable contribution through a conduit, particularly not for a conduit’s use of a mobile payment application.
Part I of this Article provides an overview of the conduit situation and the complications that arise. Part II introduces the requirements of a charitable contribution and the services that mobile payment applications offer. Part III analyzes three donation methods: a contribution directly to a 501(c)(3) organization, a contribution to an individual, and a contribution to a 501(c)(3) organization through an individual. Part IV examines the potential solutions to the issue of overfunded charities and the motivations behind each. Finally, Part V offers a brief overview of the prevalence of the issue and the future of mobile payment applications. The interaction of the detailed requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for a charitable contribution and mobile payment applications’ privacy policies, without clear authority or direction on the specific conduit situation, has the potential to be problematic and challenging for the contributor, conduit, charitable organizations, and mobile payment applications.
Abstract Case Name: Chadwick v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 154 T.C. 84 (Jan. 21, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: David J. ChadwickRespondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Penalties and Addition Tax; Trust Fund Recovery Penalty; Summary Judgement; & Judicial Standard of Review.Nature of Case: Whether written supervisor approval is required for trust fund recovery penalties to be collected against […]
Abstract Case Name: Vivian Ruesch v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. No. 13 (Jun. 25, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Vivian RueschRespondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Tax DelinquenciesNature of Case: Whether the U.S. Tax Court has jurisdiction to decide Ms. Ruesch’s underlying liability for penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS); and whether Ms. Ruesch’s claim against the IRS […]
Abstract Case Name: Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 68 (Jan. 16, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc.Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: IRS Examinations; Civil Tax Penalties; Penalty Procedures; Collections Due Process.Nature of Case: Whether an IRS agent proposing a penalty under I.R.C. § 6707A for failure to disclose participation in […]
Abstract Case Name: Dickinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2020-128 (Sept. 3, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Jon Dickinson and Helen Dickinson. Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Tax; Charitable Contribution; Charitable Deduction.Nature of Case: Does the immediate redemption of closely held stock by a sponsoring organization of a donor-advised fund cause the inherent capital gain to be included in the […]
Abstract Case Name: Sage v. Comm’r, 154 T.C. No. 12 (2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Jason B. SageRespondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: NOL; Real Estate; TrustsNature of Case: Whether the Petitioner’s transfer of land into liquidating trusts for the benefit of the parcels’ mortgage holders transferred ownership to the beneficiaries within the meaning of the “grantor” trust provisions? […]
Abstract Case Name: Maki v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Op. 2019-34 (Nov. 4, 2019).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioners: Roger G. Maki, Lilane J. Gervais. Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Tax; Self-Employment; Business Expense; Federal Rate Deduction; Luxury Water Travel; Lodging, Meals, & Incidentals.Nature of Case: (1) Whether petitioner substantiated that his travels were “ordinary and necessary” business expenses under Internal […]
Abstract Case Name: Koleti v. Mehlman, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.C-190015, 2020-Ohio-2708.Jurisdiction: Ohio Court of Appeals for the First District.Plaintiffs-Appellees: Dileep Koleti and Anusha Koleti.Defendant-Appellant: Martha Mehlman.Concepts: Ohio Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act; Attorney Fees; Deceased Debtor; Intent of Transferee.Nature of Case: Suit to recover attorney fees incurred in collecting judgment awarded as compensation for fraudulent transfer by […]
Abstract Case Name: Oakhill Woods, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-24 (Feb. 13, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioners: Oakhill Woods, LLC; Effingham Managers, LLC; Tax Matters Partner.Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue ServiceConcepts: Tax; Charitable Contribution; Charitable Deduction; Form 8283; Tax Return; Appraisal Summary; Strict Compliance.Nature of Case: The Internal Revenue Service denied a charitable contribution deduction made by […]