A second letter informed him of the estimated amount of money which would be needed to support his service.

), a taxpayer may claim a deduction for a charitable contribution only if the contribution is made "to or for the use of" a qualified organization.

14, 2019). Petitioners also assert that because their sons are agents of the Church authorized to receive payments to support their In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that these contributions could not be seen as "charita…

. Keep a financial record of all expenditures." Syllabus .

U.S. 163, 167 While conducting a routine vehicle stop, police arrested petitioner Willie Davis, a passenger, for giving a false name. We need not determine whether petitioners' interpretation of "for the use of" would have been a permissible one had the Service decided to adopt it, though we note that the Service may retain some flexibility to adopt other interpretations in the future. March 23, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court vacatedTo void, cancel, nullify, or invalidate a verdict or judgment of a court. Davis v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1979. On remand, the Fifth Circuit held the clause unconstitutional, applying the “categorical approach.” Under the categorical approach applied in Dimaya, courts do not look to the particular facts underlying a conviction, but to the elements of the crime, and whether “‘the ordinary case’ of an offense poses the requisite risk.” Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1207 (citing James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 208 (2007)). If the Church determines that a candidate is qualified to become a missionary, the president of the Church sends a letter calling the candidate to missionary service in a specified geographical location. 358 April 30, 2019: The 5th Circuit affirmedThe action … Although the language of the statute may also bear petitioners' interpretation, they have failed to establish that their interpretation is compelled by the statutory language. § 1.10A-1(g) (1989) since the expenditures were not incurred in connection with petitioners' own rendition of services and they did not render the services.

(1990), and now affirm. After handcuffing Davis and securing the scene, the police searched the vehicle and found Davis’s revolver.

Assistant Attorney General Peterson argued the cause for the United States.

At the end of their service, Cecil had no money remaining in his account; Benjamin had $150 which he used to purchase a camera. (1981); United States v. Mendenhall,

 

[495 No.

L. No. In this case, petitioners argue that their payments at least meet this second interpretation. For example, parents might be tempted to transfer funds to their children in amounts greater than needed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in donating services to a charity.

This ruling contrasts with that of the Second Circuit, which held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it “can be applied to a defendant’s case-specific conduct.” United States v. Barrett, 903 F.3d 166, 178 (2d Cir. Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (1990), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Davis was then indicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

U.S. 472, 480]

(1959); McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., In hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance on the proposed Revenue Act of 1921, representatives of charitable foundations requested an amendment making gifts to trust companies and similar donees deductible even though a trustee, rather than a charitable organization, held legal title to the funds. In interpreting this provision in the Act (and in the subsequent Revenue Act of 1918, ch. expenses. 493 (1883), and that this requirement cannot be met when the taxpayer makes a contribution directly to the intended beneficiary.

transferred funds to their sons "in trust for" the Church. 861 F.2d, at 562. In District Court, petitioners and the United States both moved for summary judgment. Reg.

84-61, 1984-1 Cum. Under such an approach, courts would assess the defendant’s conduct during the actual offense.

Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select.

Police arrested Willie Gene Davis after a traffic stop.

of the missionaries' lives, including the manner of dress and grooming. Although the Service's interpretation does not require that the qualified organization take actual possession of the contribution, it nevertheless reflects that the beneficiary must have significant legal rights with respect to the disposition of donated funds.

U.S. 472, 478] See, e. g., Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, Reg. Supp., at 471-472. Numerous judicial decisions have relied on this interpretation. Petitioners, Harold and Enid Davis, and their sons, Benjamin and Cecil, are members of the Church. In their joint tax returns filed in 1980 and 1981, petitioners claimed their sons as dependents, but did not claim a charitable contribution deduction under 26 U.S.C. Reg.

. 352 A husband and wife, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, transferred funds into the personal checking accounts of their two sons, who were called to service as full-time, unpaid missionaries for the Church.

Bob Jones University v. United States, U.S. 574, 588 [495

United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. The government argues that the categorical approach applied by the Fifth Circuit was incorrect, and instead that the case should be assessed using a “case-specific” approach. § 1951(a). The Commissioner's interpretation of "for the use of" thus appears to be entirely faithful to Congress' understanding and intent in using that phrase.

It rejected petitioners' claimed deduction for unreimbursed expenditures because petitioners were not themselves performing donated services, and it held that petitioners' payments to their sons were not "for the use of" the Church because the Church lacked sufficient possession and control of the funds. 136, 214(a)(11), 42 Stat. Id., at 562. Id., at 564. Accordingly, we conclude that a gift or contribution is "for the use of" a qualified organization when it is held in a legally enforceable trust for the qualified organization or in a similar legal arrangement.

 

If they are unable to do so, the Church will locate another donor from the local congregation or use money donated to the Church's general missionary funds. 170 for the funds sent their sons during their missionary service.

U.S. 828 The Church requested the payments, set their amounts, and, through written guidelines, instructed that they be used exclusively for missionary work. 2190 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<3881EFC184B98769A798F5B211BFF5D7><77FF8888A4A57D4AAF23D4C86A028340>]/Index[2173 26]/Info 2172 0 R/Length 84/Prev 319239/Root 2174 0 R/Size 2199/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream The amount transferred equaled the amount the Church estimated would be needed to support this service. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019).

350, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 12 (1921) (House Comm. § 170. "); 1 Restatement of Trusts 67-72 (Effect of Statute of Uses) (1935). U.S. 472, 482]

See Cammarano v. United States, This circuit split sets up a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Under the circumstances presented here, we think there is good reason to accept the Service's interpretation of "for the use of." Although the language of 170 would support the interpretation of either the Service or petitioners, the events leading to the enactment of the 1921 amendment adding the phrase "for the use of" to 170 indicate that Congress had a specific meaning of "for the use of" in mind. h�b```�*� cb��Ȃ %��0���x�q���r��G��)�+�,� �0�PVq�R�R�߬S8�9���dM�re�f����n�b�^�Q��2���NJ7�ݑ��ŜM���>��,7Y�9�؂�"Y7q�.

The parents sued for refund of the claimed amounts pursuant to § 170 of the Internal Revenue Code[2] (which allows a deduction for a charitable contribution or gift "to or for the use of" a qualified organization) or as unreimbursed expenditures made incident to the rendition of services to a charitable organization under Treas. -493 (1931). L. Rev. to supervise the use of contributed funds. 1950) ("use" defined in general usage as "to convert to one's service"; "to employ"; or, in law, "use imports a trust" relationship). 446 [2] Additionally, the court found the payments did not qualify as "reasonable expenditures" incurred while providing services to the Church, so as to be deductible under Treas Reg. to deduct contributions made to trusts, foundations, and similar donees. By contrast, Petitioners deposited the funds directly into their sons' personal bank accounts.

It is significant that almost immediately following the amendment of 170, the Commissioner Rul. 13. [495 2018), cert.

To the contrary, there is no evidence that Congress intended the phrase "for the use of" to be interpreted as referring to fiduciary relationships in general or as referring to a type of relationship that gives a qualified organization a reasonable ability . 1157, 1163-1164 (1929).

While conducting a routine vehicle stop, police arrested petitioner Willie Davis, a passenger, for giving a false name.

interpreted the phrase "for the use of" as "intended to convey a similar meaning as `in trust for.'" Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. In light of these events, it can be inferred that Congress' use of the phrase "for the use of" related to its purpose in amending 170 of allowing taxpayers SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES EARL DAVIS v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT . They were also convicted on two counts of “brandishing a short-barreled shotgun during a crime of violence,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 187 (1920).

(1921); Blanset v. Cardin, Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church) are deductible as charitable contributions "to or for the use of" the Church, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.

to Pet. See, e. g., United States v. Bowling, 170 (1982 ed.).

[ Jan 30 2020: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020. to Pet. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners' transfer of funds into their sons' accounts was not a contribution "to or for the use of" the Church for purposes of 170.

114. The Fifth Circuit wrote that “[b]ecause the language of the residual clause here and that in § 16(b) [the statute at issue in Dimaya] are identical, this court lacks the authority to say that, under the categorical approach, the outcome would not be the same.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES .

Charitable donations must be given to the qualified organization, not a member acting on its behalf.