Posted on 05/31/2012 7:07:17 PM PDT by WilliamIII
If you intend to take a deduction for a charitable gift, pay attention to the letter of the law.
With regret, a U.S. Tax Court judge denied a wealthy Sacramento, Calif., couple a deduction for $18.5 million they took after donating valuable properties to charity because they didn’t attach a proper appraisal to the donation form.
Joseph Mohamed is a real-estate broker, certified real-estate appraiser and prominent Sacramento entrepreneur, according to the decision, which was released May 29. In 1998 he and his wife Shirley set up a charitable remainder trust; such trusts typically pay income for life to the donors and after death give the remaining assets to one or more charities. (The Mohameds’ charities included the Shriners Hospitals for Children, the Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services and the Pacific Legal Foundation.)
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
I am not knowledgeable in these matters but.. IMO this is why when the politicians say tax the rich they always talk about taxing W-2, 1099, and such earnings. Do people pay taxes on wealth? There have always been a hell of lot of Democrats in the super wealthy category who have supported Democratic Party demand to make the W-2 and 1099 "rich" pay their fair share.
Get rid of the Federal Income Tax and all this B.S. goes away.
When the leftist argue that the rich should pay more I agree with them with qualifications. First, the rich ones favoring raising the taxes on the rich should be required to retroactively pay the suggested higher taxes on all their lifetime accumulated income before the increased taxes on others could go into effect. Needless to say, they always get angry and stomp off.
the rich have many advantages to "enrich" their lives thru business and personal deductions that logically can not be taken by mr/mrs wage earner....box seat at nfl games...write off...golf vacations with a business "associate"...write off....2 martini lunches...write off....
So, can they rescind the donation?
Men with guns, i.e, the Feds, want their loot.
I'll bet ya dollars to donuts that those checks have already cleared the bank.
PLF has made its mark as the nation’s leading freedom fighter by winning important legal precedents in state and federal courts. Because it chooses cases where constitutional rights are at risk, PLF has made repeat appearances before the United States Supreme Court—and won several major cases—a record of success unmatched by any other public interest legal organization.
Open Supreme Court cases
Environmental Regulations
Promoting regulation that is pro-jobs and pro-environment
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. Corps of Engineers
Equality Under the Law Program
PLF defends Michigan Civil Rights Initiative
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm; Cantrell v. Granholm
Constitutional challenge to Hawaii’s discriminatory homestead leases
Corboy v. Louie
University of Texas is flouting the Constitution with race-based admissions
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Individual Rights
Businesses—and the economy—should be shielded from lawsuits that aren't based on verifiable injuries
First American Financial Corp. v Edwards
Public employees can't be forced to bankroll unions' ideological activism
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
Upholding the right of public employees not to pay for lawsuits that don't concern them
Locke v. Karass
Florida decorator-licensing law is defined unconstitutionally
Locke v. Shore
Landmark Supreme Court Victories
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) One of the most important property rights decisions in the Supreme Court’s history, Nollan outlawed an egregious form of “shakedown” by land-use regulators; specifically, it said government may not condition the granting of a building permit on the landowner making some payment or surrender of property that has no connection to the impact of the proposed building project.
Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) A First Amendment case holding that a trade or professional organization to which professionals are legally bound to belong may not use their mandatory dues to fund ideologically based lobbying.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997) This ruling stopped regulators from demanding that an elderly, wheelchair-bound widow sell her minuscule transferable development rights in a nonexistent market before being able to seek judicial relief for denial of her right to build a home.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) This ruling held that government is not relieved from its Fifth Amendment obligation to provide compensation for excessive regulations on private property merely because the property has changed hands since the regulations first took effect. PLF defended landowner Anthony Palazzolo who challenged the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.
Rapanos v. United States (2006) This decision narrowed the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that landowners who are not close to “navigable waters” may not be subjected to federal micro managing of their property.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) Held that school districts that voluntarily adopt student assignment plans that rely on race to determine which schools certain children may attend, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. As amicus, PLF attorneys participated as second chair at oral argument assisting Meredith’s attorney.
Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) In an unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rules that landowners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if the EPA effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it to be "wetlands." The Court rules in favor of PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, who were told by EPA -- and by the Ninth Circuit -- that they could not get direct court review of EPA's claim that their two-thirds of an acre parcel is "wetlands" and that they must obey a detailed and instrusive EPA "compliance" order, or be hit with fines of up to $75,000 per day.
The RATs have made that impossible by putting 50% of Americans on the dole.
Yes, that seems simple enough. “With regret”, of course, but take the properties back.
In this case, the Judge was a Bush appointee, and a Harvard grad, to boot. Yet he felt there was no room in the law for judgement? ? ?
Cases like this are straight out of the Critical Theory School, in that this case will certainly teach all who read it that there is less and less of America’s court and tax system worth saving.
The tipping point will likely come when there is another depression and the productive decide to not support the parasitic class any more.
Money and talent does not have to be used, especially when it is penalized.
Decisions such as this one, handed down by this “Marsupial Magistrate”, are destroying what little respect for, and belief in, American law and courts.
This decision is a perfect example of the “Alles In Ordnung” behavior in the Third Reich.
Yes, “with regret” is exactly as I was thinking. With as much regret as the judge felt.
Democrats often want to and that's why the language of their tax "debate" is so disingenuous. Particularly during the housing bubble, you could've been a "millionaire" on paper because of your home's valuation in a hot market but not a millionaire in liquid assets or income.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.