It’s only the inflated numbers that keep Carl B. Barney, T. C. Memo. 2025-133, filed 12/30/25, from the entire amount he claimed as a charitable deduction. I’ve been following Carl B.’s hike through Tax Court through four (count ’em, four) blogposts, but, as usual, it all  comes down to the valuation joust.

Carl B.’s experts used management cashflow projections, which Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler finds unrealistically optimistic, given the flak for-profit colleges had encountered at time of sale. And Cal B.’s subsequent 1040Xs can’t undo his electing out of Section 453 installmentation. Post-event reductions-in-price relief applies to purchasers, not sellers, so Section 108(e)(2) doesn’t help Carl B.

“Mr. Barney voluntarily elected out of the installment method despite being a cash basis taxpayer and entitled to report gain as payments are received. He reported the entire transaction and gain for [year at issue] despite receiving only Purchase Notes as consideration. Each tax year stands on its own, and we find it entirely inappropriate to apply a purchase price adjustment for [year at issue] on the basis of events occurring in [Year Three].” T. C. Memo. 2025-133, at pp. 26-27. (Footnotes omitted).

There was a sale, Car B. didn’t keep more control post-sale than any purchase-money seller-lender would. There’s a gap between FMV of what Carl B. transferred and what he got, so there is a bargain sale, but there needs to be computations, although Judge Speedy Weiler doesn’t order a Rule 155.

Chops were on the table, and Carl B. claimed an overpayment of tax, but until the final numbers are done, neither can be determined.