Murphy v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, payment, based on ability to pay, by adoptive parents to an adoption agency, a qualified charitable organization under sec. 170(c), I.R.C. 1954, to effect the adoption of a child is not a charitable contribution within the meaning of sec. 170, I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
The sole issue which we must decide is whether the $875 paid to the agency, a qualified charitable organization, during 1966 constituted a charitable contribution within the meaning of section 170.2
Petitioners argue that their payment to the adoption agency constituted a charitable contribution deductible under section 170, because (1) “it was based upon [Edward’s] income and was not in any way tied to expenses incurred or services rendered by [the agency] in [the] adoption,” (2) “[it] was a free-will gift,” and (8) “[t]he adoption of Amy Beth Murphy was not contingent upon [the]…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Harold Dejong and Marjorie J. Dejong v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Channing v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1933
- Estate of Wood v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- McLaughlin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- McMillan v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
3Cited by38 opinions
- United States v. American Bar EndowmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Graham v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Seed v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Robert L. Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
- Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.