Sketchy charitable donation deductions are not geographically limited; we have some good ones up here in the North. William J. Cade and Mary E. Cade, T. C. Memo. 2025-20, filed 3/10/25, claim they forgot to take a $283K charitable deduction on their 1040, so they file a 1040X which IRS bounces after Exam rejects it. The Cades can contest liability at their CDP, as the deficiency is self-assessed and not the result of a SND.

IRS goes one-for-three on summary J. The Cades’ trusty attorney strikes out swinging when he claims the Form 8283 is all-sufficient.

“Petitioners have advanced two arguments in urging that they secured ‘qualified appraisals.’ According to AO M, petitioners’ counsel took the position during the CDP proceeding ‘that a Form 8283 was sufficient’ and that ‘no other documentation needed to be provided.’

“Petitioners contended, in other words, that the Forms 8283 attached to the amended return were themselves ‘qualified appraisals.’ This argument is a non-starter. ‘Form 8283 is the form that the IRS prescribes for an appraisal summary.’ Savannah Shoals, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-35, at *13 (emphasis added). Needless to say, an ‘appraisal summary’ is not the same thing as an ‘appraisal.’ The required contents for a ‘qualified appraisal’ are set forth in Treasury Regulation §§ 1.170A-13(c)(3) and 1.170A-17(a). The much more limited requirements for an ‘appraisal summary’ are forth in Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-13(c)(4). The regulations thus make clear that an ‘appraisal’ and an ‘appraisal summary’ are distinct documents.” T. C. Memo. 2025-20, at pp. 11-12.

When the appraisals show up, the appraisers themselves are a wee bit below grade. “Mr. P, the individual who appraised the clothing items, describes himself as the retired owner of the Unique Army Navy Store in Albany, New York. Mr. M, the individual who appraised the cobblestones, describes himself as a project supervisor and estimator for a company that does commercial stonework. Mr. Evans, the individual who appraised the vinyl flooring and adhesive, describes himself as ‘the operational supervisor’ at Discount Flooring Mart in Albany, New York.

“None of these individuals avers that he ‘regularly performs appraisals for which [he] receives compensation.’ § 170(f)(11)(E)(ii)(II).” T. C. Memo. 2025-20, at p. 13. (Names omitted).

And the defects are fatal: “Several of the requirements in question—e.g., that the taxpayer obtain on actual appraisal and that the appraiser ‘regularly perform[] appraisals for which [he] receives compensation’—demand strict compliance because they are imposed by the statute itself. See § 170(f)(11)(E)(i), (ii)(II).” T. C. Memo. 2025-20, at p. 14, footnote 8.

But Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber finds fact questions in the CWA. Taishoff says there are plenty.

After arguing for 11 (count ’em, 11) months that the Form 8283 was a CWA, “petitioners finally supplied what purported to be an actual receipt from Victory Christian Church, ostensibly dated December 3, 2019. But the timing of this submission arouses suspicion. The Examination Division, AO M, and EAO L had been requesting a copy of the CWA for many months. If petitioners or their return preparer had this document in their files, it seems odd that it was not provided sooner.

“The receipt has other questionable features. It lists the three categories of items contributed and states that ‘[n]o goods or services were provided to the donor in return for donor’s contribution.’ But the signature is illegible, and the document does not indicate the signatory’s name or title.

“The receipt is dated December 3, 2019, the same date that appears in the ‘Donee Acknowledgment’ in Section B, Part IV of each Form 8283. But the address shown for the Church on the two documents is different. The Form 8283 lists the Church’s address as 118 Quail Street, Albany, New York 12206. The receipt lists the Church’s address as 1312 Central Avenue, Colonie, New York 12205. And while the signatures on the respective documents are both illegible, they appear to be different signatures. Given that the documents were ostensibly executed on the same day, these seeming discrepancies require explanation.” T. C. Memo. 2025-20, at pp. 9-10. (Names omitted).

Unscrambling this frittata is clearly ill-suited to summary J. I’m sure the trial testimony will be utterly absorbing.

Likewise the Section 170(f)(11)(A)(ii)(II) good-faith omission of the appraisal escape clause is a question of fact. Did the Cades exercise ordinary business care and prudence? I report, Judge Scholar Al will decide.

No dilithium crystals, mineral deposits, or brown-headed nuthatches, only cobblestones and vinyl flooring, but we up here in Excelsiorland have some good 170s too.