Page 37 - JoFA_Jan_Apr23

In his testimony before the Tax IRS telephone service worsened from 2021 to 2022
Court, Schweizer stated that he reviewed
The number of toll-free calls answered and level of service (the percentage of callers
the return in his accountant’s office and
able to speak to an assistor) declined, while average wait time increased.
noted the discrepancies on Form 8283
but was told by his accountant that a Assistor calls answered Average time to answer (minutes)
complete Form 8283 and appraisal were
unnecessary because “the IRS already 30
16 30
had it — or has it.” However, the ac- 15,400,000
countant testified at trial that he had not 20
14 20
given Schweizer this advice.
The IRS examined the 2011 return.
12 10
During the examination, an IRS
appraiser determined the sculpture
was worth $250,000. The IRS issued 10 0
2021* 2022*
Schweizer a timely notice of deficiency,
in which it asserted as its primary po- 8
7,783,000
sition that no deduction was allowable Level of service Level of access**
because Schweizer failed to satisfy the 4 30 30 28%
statutory and regulatory substantiation 23.8%
requirements for this gift. The notice 2 20 16.4% 20
asserted as a secondary position that the 14.1%
allowable charitable contribution de-
0 10 10
duction should be reduced to $250,000.
The notice, however, listed only one
0 0
deficiency amount, based on the second 2021* 2022* 2021* 2022* 2021* 2022*
position. Schweizer challenged the
IRS’s determination in Tax Court. *Partial years as of Aug. 14, 2021, and Aug. 13, 2022.
In an amendment to its answer to ** The sum of all assistor and automated calls answered, divided by the total number of call attempts
Schweizer’s Tax Court petition, the made while each toll-free help line was open.
IRS asserted an increased deficiency, Source: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Major Management and Performance Challenges
contending that, based on its first Facing the IRS, Fiscal Year 2023, Figure 2.
position regarding substantiation in
the notice of deficiency, Schweizer’s
charitable deduction should be denied to grant summary judgment on whether due date of the return, including exten-
in its entirety. The IRS also made a Schweizer qualified for the exception sions. The taxpayer must also include
motion for partial summary judgment in Sec. 170(f)(11)(A)(ii)(II) for failures Form 8283 with the return on which
on the substantiation issue, which the shown to be due to reasonable cause and the deduction is first claimed (Sec.
Tax Court granted. The court found not to willful neglect, leaving that issue 170(f)(11)(C)). Where the claimed
that Schweizer failed to obtain a timely to be decided at trial. value of the donated property exceeds
qualified appraisal of the sculpture as Issues: Sec. 170(a)(1) allows as a $500,000, as in Schweizer’s case, Sec.
required by Regs. Sec. 1.170A-13(c)(3); deduction any charitable contribution 170(f)(11)(D) requires that a qualified
failed to attach to his 2011 return an made during the tax year. Under Regs. appraisal be obtained no later than
appraisal of any kind, as required by Sec. 1.170A-1(c)(1) the amount of the due date of the return, including
Sec. 170(f)(11)(D) for gifts valued in the charitable contribution deduction extensions, and the qualified appraisal
excess of $500,000; and failed to attach for a donation of property other than must be attached to the return. If these
to his return a fully completed Form money is generally the fair market value requirements are not met, a deduction
8283, as required by Sec. 170(f)(11)(C) (FMV) of the property at the time of for a charitable contribution is generally
and Regs. Sec. 1.170A-13(c)(2)(i)(B). the gift. If a contribution of property not allowed.
The Tax Court concluded that any other than publicly traded securities However, Sec. 170(f)(11)(A)(ii)(II)
one of these issues alone would be exceeds $5,000, the taxpayer generally provides that a deduction may be
sufficient to disallow the charitable must obtain a qualified appraisal of the allowed despite a failure to meet the
deduction. However, the court declined contributed property no later than the substantiation requirements if the

journalofaccountancy.com January 2023 | 35