Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Taxation & Estate Planning Blogs -> Rubin on Tax
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Taxation & Estate Planning
: Rubin on Tax?GIFT OVER? FORMULA CLAUSE RESPECTED BY TAX COURT
By Charles Rubin
Taxpayers often desire to make gifts of difficult to value property by using their available unified credit to cover the value of the gift and thus avoid current gift tax. The problem they face is that if the IRS is successful in proving a higher value for the property than the taxpayer, this could put the taxpayer over the unified credit amount and thus incur current gift taxes.
To address this problem, taxpayers use ?formula clauses? to limit the amount of the gift to the desired amount. The IRS typically contests these clauses, claiming they are against public policy since they reduce or eliminate the IRS? incentive to auditing.
One type of clause used is known as a ?gift over? clause. In this type of clause, the taxpayer gifts away the property, but provides that to the extent that the value of the gift exceeds a certain dollar amount, the remaining value goes to another recipient (typically one or more charities). Thus, any unexpected increases in value on IRS examination act to increase the amount going to charity ? no additional gift tax results due to the charitable gift tax deduction.
In a taxpayer victory, the Tax Court has upheld the application of such a clause after the IRS successfully argued for a higher value for gifts made by a taxpayer than the value reported on the gift tax return. Facts and factors that assisted the court in reaching its decision included:
A. The Court noted this clause was not in the nature of a prohibited Proctor ?savings? clause that returns property to the grantor to the extent of any finally determined increases in value. Instead, under this type of clause, no matter what the final valuation of the gifted property the taxpayer gifted away the same property, with the only uncertainty being who receives it (based on values finally determined).
B. The Court feels less comfortable in relying on public policy arguments than it has in the past. The Court cited Commissioner v. Tellier, 383 U.S. 687, 694 [17 AFTR 2d 633] (1966), where the Supreme Court warned against invoking public-policy exceptions to the Code too freely. The Court also noted the contrary public policy of encouraging gifts to charities, which gifts are supported by these types of clauses.
C. The Court noted that there were a number of facts that demonstrated fiduciary and legal obligations of various parties to respect the rights of the charitable beneficiaries, and thus limits the ability of the taxpayers to exploit the presence of the charities for tax planning purposes via low-ball valuations. Indeed, the charities were active in this case in negotiating the transfers and enforcing their rights. The case also presents useful guidance in regard to structuring the charity?s gifts in a manner that enhances these types of factors (e.g., by making the charities a full member in the LLC in which they received gifts instead of just holders of restricted transferee interests).
D. The Court also acknowledged that the Code and Regulations allow the use of formulas in various circumstances, so that formula clauses should not be preemptively declared to be against public policy in all circumstances. This is an argument often made by taxpayers and it is helpful that this argument was acknowledged, at least in part, by the Tax Court.
An interesting side issue in the case was whether the charitable deduction for the gift should be allowed in the original year of gift, even though the amount of the charitable gift was effectively increased by the IRS? later higher valuation in a later year. The Court found that the charitable deduction occurred in the year of the original gift.
Petter, et al. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2009-280
Full post as published by Rubin on Tax on December 25, 2009 (boomark / email).
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Parents Bring Federal Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn
Parents Bring Federal Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn
Abbott Nutrition
Calcilo XD Infant Formula Recalled
Infant Formula From China
FDA Warns it May be Contaminated Melamine
Health Canada
Issues Warning for Specific-Formula Arthro-Ace
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

11th Circuit Finds Formula Based Retail Regulations Violate Dormant Commerce Clause
Health Warning and Recall: Total Body Formula and Total Body Mega Formula
Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Jumping to $13,000 Next Year
Trace Melamine Found in Baby Formula in US








