Taking my cue from E. G. Leutze, whose famous mural in U. S. Congress shows about the only progress in U. S. Congress…but this is a nonpolitical blog. So I shall soberly discuss Clint L. Martin and Jenifer Martin, T. C. Memo. 2026-40, filed 5/14/26, a coupled entry with Cousin Stephen and his spouse Amanda.

Clint and aforesaid family donated 13.3 acres to the striving, thriving municipality of Highland City, UT, which gratefully accepted same “to maintain th[e] property in perpetuity as preserved open space.” T. C. Memo. 2026-40, at p. 2, with all taxes paid through calendar year at issue and all costs of the transfer picked up.

IRS plays the usual avoid-trial summary J gambits: no CWA, no qualified appraisal, and no complete and correct appraisal summary attached to year-at-issue return.

Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh cuts to the cliché: no CWA, no deduction, no need for trial except any reasonable reliance or Boss Hossery defenses for the chops.

There’s no prescribed form for the CWA, except it must contain a description of the property, and an affirmative statement that no goods or services were provided in exchange (merely stating “donation” or “generous gift” is insufficient; Judge C-Doug has the receipts). Substantial compliance doesn’t get it, and Judge C-Doug won’t let Clint’s trusty attorney try to backdoor it in by citing UT law. 

“We need not decide what Utah law would provide because petitioners identify no cases (nor did we find any) applying the affirmative indication test to look outside a deed for a merger clause. And it would be contradictory to read a merger clause into a deed to satisfy a statute that, by its express terms, requires a written acknowledgment.” T. C. 2026-40, at p. 6.  (Emphasis by the Court).

Trusty attorney claims a Joint Letter signed by the Martins and the mayor of Highland City describing the donation, the Form 8283 filed with the year-at-issue return, and the deed, read together, satisfy the statute. Indeed, documents have been read together to satisfy Section 170(f)(8).

But the deed has no merger clause, stating it embodies the entire understanding the parties and can’t be changed or waived without a writing signed by the party against whom change or waiver asserted. 

What it does have is proof that whoever drafted the deed used a dime-store bargain and sale with the infamous “ten ($10.00) dollars and other good and valuable consideration” language that sank poor ol’ Randy Schrimsher. It also proves that same person doesn’t read this my blog. See, e.g., my blogpost “Merger,” 12/19/22.

Suffice it to say that the Joint Letter doesn’t say what the City was going to do with the property to preserve it as open space, nor that that wouldn’t benefit the Martins.

The plain words of the three (count ’em, three) documents don’t satisfy the statute, and no one claims they’re ambiguous. 

Take it from an old Army engineer and long-time dirt lawyer, those dime-store deed forms are unexploded ordnance.