Perlmutter v. Commissioner

Fat, J.,

concurring: I agree with the majority that the transfers of property in question, because petitioners received a direct benefit therefor, do not qualify as charitable contributions under section 170(c). However, I believe that the only direct benefit received by petitioners from the transfers was the avoidance of “considerable and protracted difficulty” in obtaining the county’s approval of their development plans.¹ I disagree with the majority opinion to the extent to which it implies that the existence of school and recreational facilities on the transferred land also constitutes a direct benefit which alone would disqualify the transfers as charitable contributions. Such benefit seems to me to be of an incidental nature.

1 Or the county’s approval itself if the regulation requiring the transfers was constitutionally valid.