Kaufman v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “— Paragraph (g)(1), the “[enforceable in perpetuity” requirement, states that “any interest in the property retained by the donor ... must be subject to legally enforceable restrictions ... that will prevent uses of the retained interest inconsistent with the conservation purposes of the donation.” 26 C.F.R. § 1 .170A-14(g)(l). — Paragraph (g)(2), the mortgage subordination requirement, states that “no deduction will be permitted under this section for an interest in property which is subject to a mortgage unless the mortgagee subordinates its rights in the property to the right of the [donee] organization to enforce the conservation purposes of the gift in perpetuity.” 26 C.F.R. § 1 .170A-14(g)(2). — Paragraph (g)(3), the “[r]emote future event” provision, adds a noteworthy qualification to the regulatory requirements: “A deduction shall not be disallowed ... merely because the interest which passes to, or is vested in, the donee organization may be defeated by the performance of some act or the happening of some event, if on the date of the gift it.appears that the possibility that such act or event will occur is so remote as to be negligible.” 26 C.F.R. § 1 .170A-i4(g)(3). — Paragraph (g)(6), the extinguishment .provision, requires that “when a change in conditions give rise to the extinguishment of a perpetual conservation restriction [by judicial proceeding], the donee organization, on a subsequent sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of the subject property, must b”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaufman v. Shulman · Carpenter v. Comm'r

2. “Seeing no benefit to [the taxpayer] other than facilitation of her contribution of the facade easement ... and an increased charitable contribution deduction, we shall not deny petitioners’ deduction of the cash payments on the ground that the application required a “donor endowment” to accompany the contribution of facade easement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scheidelman v. Commissioner · Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

3. “Many easement holding organizations require the easement donor to make an additional donation of funds to help administer the easement. These funds are often held in an endowment that generates an annual income to pay for easement administration costs such as staff time and travel expenses, or needed legal services.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scheidelman v. Commissioner · Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue