Case: 21-60679 Document: 00516375624 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 29, 2022
No. 21-60679 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Joe Alfred Izen, Jr.,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Tax Court No. 28358-12
Before Higginbotham, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. appeals the denial of an income tax deduction he
claimed for a charitable donation of an aircraft. Because Izen failed to comply
with the statutory requirements for such a deduction, we affirm the judgment
of the Tax Court.
I.
In 2012, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue notified Izen that he
had deficiencies for the 2009 and 2010 tax years. Izen petitioned for a
redetermination by the Tax Court. In 2014, Izen filed an amended petition
Case: 21-60679 Document: 00516375624 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
No. 21-60679
and, for the first time, argued that he was entitled to a deduction of $338,080
for the charitable donation of his 50% interest in an airplane to the Houston
Aeronautical Heritage Society (the “Society”).
On January 23, 2016, Izen moved for summary judgment, seeking a
declaration that he was entitled to the deduction. On March 9, 2016, the Tax
Court denied Izen’s motion, concluding that material fact issues remained.
Izen then moved for leave to file a second amended petition and he filed an
amended tax return for 2010 on IRS Form 1040X, attaching further materials
to support his claimed deduction. The Tax Court ordered the Commissioner
to respond to Izen’s motion, and on May 27, 2016, the Commissioner
responded and moved for partial summary judgment as to the deduction,
arguing that Izen failed to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 170(f). Izen filed a second
motion for summary judgment on July 19, 2016, arguing that his Form 1040X
established that he was entitled to the deduction.
The Tax Court determined that Izen was not entitled to the
deduction, denying his motion for partial summary judgment and granting
partial summary judgment to the Commissioner. 1 After stipulations between
the parties that resolved the remaining issues, the Tax Court then entered a
final decision determining that Izen had deficiencies of $13,060 for 2009 and
$56 for 2010. Izen timely appealed to this Court, challenging only the denial
of a deduction for his donation of his interest in the plane.
II.
We have jurisdiction to review decisions of the Tax Court under 26
U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the Tax Court’s grant of summary
1
Izen v. Comm’r, 148 T.C. 71 (2017).
2
Case: 21-60679 Document: 00516375624 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
No. 21-60679
judgment. 2 Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and [ ] a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.” 3
“We review the Tax Court’s interpretation of the applicable law and statutes
de novo.” 4
III.
Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code governs deductions for
charitable contributions. 5 Section 170(f)(8) sets out substantiation
requirements for certain contributions and § 170(f)(12) sets out further rules
for the contributions of qualified vehicles. To claim a charitable contribution
deduction, a taxpayer must substantiate the validity of the donation and its
valuation. 6 Where the contribution’s value exceeds $5,000, the taxpayer
must also provide a qualified appraisal. 7 For a contribution of a qualified
vehicle, including airplanes, whose value exceeds $500, the taxpayer must
provide contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee
organization of the contribution, including the name and taxpayer
identification number of the donor. 8 An acknowledgment is
contemporaneous if it is provided by the donee organization within thirty
2
Jones v. Comm’r, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003).
3
Tax. Court R. Prac. & Proc. 121(b).
4
Ragan v. Comm’r, 210 F.3d 514, 517 (5th Cir. 2000).
5
26 U.S.C. § 170.
6
Id. § 170(f)(8).
7
Id. § 170(f)(11)(C).
8
Id. § 170(f)(12)(B).
3
Case: 21-60679 Document: 00516375624 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
No. 21-60679
days of the contribution. 9 Further, the donee organization must provide the
IRS with the information contained in the acknowledgement. 10
The Commissioner was entitled to summary judgment as Izen was
disallowed from claiming the deduction as a matter of law. Izen failed to
provide a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee
organization that satisfied the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(12)(B).
Section 170(f)(12)(A)(i) disallows the deduction unless the requisite
contemporaneous written acknowledgment is included in the tax return
claiming the deduction. Here, we look to Izen’s Form 1040X, as that was the
first tax return where Izen claimed the deduction.
Izen did not provide a satisfactory contemporaneous written
acknowledgement with his Form 1040X. Izen included a letter dated
December 30, 2010 from the Society discussing the donation of the airplane,
but the letter was addressed to Philippe Tanguy, not Izen. The letter does not
mention Izen and does not provide his taxpayer identification number. The
letter cannot substantiate the contribution of the airplane under
§ 170(f)(12)(B)(i). 11 Izen also included a copy of the donation agreement
between him, Tanguy, and the Society, but the agreement fails to satisfy
§ 170(f)(12)(B)(i) as it lacks Izen’s taxpayer identification number. Finally,
9
Id. § 170(f)(12)(C).
10
Id. § 170(f)(12)(D).
11
Izen asks us to also examine a different letter from the Society, addressed to him
but not attached to his Form 1040X, the relevant filing for our analysis. Because this
alternate letter was not attached to Izen’s Form 1040X, we cannot consider it; even if we
could, it similarly lacks his taxpayer identification number.
4
Case: 21-60679 Document: 00516375624 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
No. 21-60679
Izen attached a Form 8283 to his Form 1040X, but the Form 8283 did not
include his taxpayer number. 12
Izen argues that he substantially complied with the requirements and
that the documents he provided should be read together with the return to
substantiate his claimed deduction. The doctrine of substantial compliance
may support a taxpayer’s claim where he or she acted in good faith and
exercised due diligence but nevertheless failed to meet a regulatory
requirement. 13 We cannot accept the argument that substantial compliance
satisfies statutory requirements. 14 Congress specifically required the
contemporaneous written acknowledgment include the taxpayer
identification number, but that is lacking here. 15
IV.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the Tax Court, which denied Izen’s
partial motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s partial
12
Further, Izen’s Form 8283 was not a contemporaneous written acknowledgment
by the donee organization as it was not signed by the Society until 2016, well past thirty
days of the donation. Izen argues that a written acknowledgement is contemporaneous if
produced within thirty days of the filing, but this argument conflicts with the clear statutory
definition. Under 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(12)(C), an acknowledgment is contemporaneous if it
is provided by the donee organization within thirty days of the contribution.
Section 170(f)(12)(C) does not reference the timing of the taxpayer’s filing.
13
McAlpine v. Comm’r, 968 F.2d 459, 462 (5th Cir. 1992).
14
See Addis v. Comm’r, 374 F.3d 881, 887 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the plain
language of
26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(8) required a total denial of a charitable deduction where
the taxpayer failed to comply with the statute; § 170(f)(8) is substantially similar to the
provisions of § 170(f)(12) at issue here). See also French v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,
111
T.C.M. (CCH) 1241 (2016) (“The doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to
excuse compliance with the strict substantiation requirements of section 170(f)(8)(B).”).
15
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-357, § 884,
118 Stat. 1418, 1633–
34 (2004).
5
Case: 21-60679 Document: 00516375624 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/29/2022
No. 21-60679
motion for summary judgment, and ultimately granted a final judgment in the
Commissioner’s favor.
6
