There’s no denying that amateur sports, especially college football, are big business. Together, the 15 top-grossing teams score over $1 billion in revenue, with the University of Texas Longhorns alone generating $71.2 million in profit.

Numbers like that would normally make the “receivers” at the IRS smile. But college football is different. The big Division I schools that sponsor the most competitive teams are all tax-exempt. And the IRS loses again on a juicy revenue stream that’s unique to college sports — required donations, sometimes totaling twice the cost of a season ticket, that fans make to the school to secure those seats.

Back in 1986, boosters couldn’t deduct the contributions they made specifically to secure sports tickets. But Louisiana Senator Russell Long, who sat on the Finance Committee, met with lobbyists who argued that his home state Louisiana State University needed tax-deductible contributions to add seats to Tiger Stadium. Long agreed, but didn’t want to be seen showing favoritism to his own constituent. So he approached Texas Representative Jake Pickle, whose Austin district included the Longhorns’ campus. Together, the two lawmakers cobbled together the sort of backroom deal that makes the rest of us proud to be Americans. They added a provision to the 1986 Tax Reform Act which preserved a 100% deduction — for just those two schools! Here’s how the legislation describes one of them to limit its reach:

“Such institution was mandated by a State constitution in 1876; such institution was established by a State legislature in March 1881; is located in a State capital pursuant to a statewide election in Sept. 1881; the campus of such institution formally opened on Sept. 15, 1883; such institution is operated under the authority of a 9-member board of regents appointed by the governor.”

Naturally, every other school in the country complained. So — did the lawmakers turn red in embarrassment at getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar and shut down the offending provision? Noooooooo . . . two years later, they voted to trim the deduction to 80% of the donation, but extend it to everyone.

How much does this all cost the IRS? Well, nobody really knows. But Ohio State University is the leader in seat-related donations, with $38.7 million. LSU is next with $38 million, and Texas is third with $33.9 million. (In fact, LSU is about to spend $80 million to add 70 more luxury boxes and 6,900 more seats, which should bring in another $15 million in donations.) If the average donor pays 25% in federal tax, that means $22 million in lost tax dollars. And that’s just three schools out of 1,000 eligible to collect such donations. Of course, defenders of the deduction argue that it’s worth the hit to the Treasury. They note that donations go to support scholarships, facilities, and other university expenses.

This Saturday, it will be hard to turn on a television without hearing about the upcoming election or “Frankenstorm” Sandy. College football will provide a welcome respite to millions of fans across the country. So next time you sit down to watch your favorite team, hoist a cold one to the tax code that helps make their success possible!

The English novelist and playwright Henry Fielding once wrote that “a rich man without charity is a rogue; and perhaps it would be no difficult matter to prove that he is also a fool.” But sometimes you can be rich, charitable, and foolish, all at the same time. And that can make for some really expensive mistakes.

Joseph Mohamed is a California real estate broker and appraiser who’s made a fortune buying, selling, and developing real estate. In 1998, he and his wife Shirley set up a charitable remainder trust for the benefit of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, the Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services, and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Then, in 2003 and 2004, he donated six California properties to the trust: four adjacent street corners in Rio Linda, a 40-acre subdivided parcel south of Sacramento, and a shopping center in Elk Grove.

Mohamed prepared his own taxes for those two years — definitely not standard operating procedure for someone in his shoes. When it came time to fill out Form 8283, “Noncash Charitable Contributions”, he skipped the instructions because “it seemed so clear that he didn’t think he needed to.” The form said the description of the donated property could be “completed by the taxpayer and/or appraiser.” And Mohamed was an appraiser, right? Of course he knew what his own properties were worth. How hard could it really be? He attached statements to his returns explaining how he valued the two biggest parcels. Then he deducted $18.5 million for the gift, satisfied that he had done all he needed to substantiate his writeoff.

It turns out, though, that the IRS wants a teensy bit more than just your say-so before handing out eighteen million in benefits. In fact, they have some pretty specific rules for deducting any gift of property worth more than $5,000. You need a “qualified” appraisal, made no sooner than 60 days before the gift and no later than the due date of the return reporting the gift itself. It has to be signed by a certified appraiser — not the donor or the taxpayer claiming the deduction. And the appraisal has to include specific information about the property itself, your basis in the property, and how you acquired it in the first place.

The IRS started auditing Mohamed’s 2003 return in April, 2005. You can probably imagine how charitably inclined they were toward his self-appraisal. So Mohamed went out and got independent appraisals showing the properties were worth over $20 million — two million more than he deducted. And the trust actually sold the 40 acres south of Sacramento for $23 million. You would think that would be enough. But you would be wrong. The IRS held firm, and the case wound up in Tax Court.

Last month, the Court issued their 26-page opinion in Mohamed v. Commissioner. They ruled that none of Mohamed’s appraisals were “qualified” under Section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i) and shot down his entire deduction. The Court confessed that “We recognize that this result is harsh — complete denial of charitable deductions to a couple that did not overvalue, and may well have undervalued, their contributions — all reported on forms that even to the Court’s eyes seemed likely to mislead someone who didn’t read the instructions.” But, the Court continued, “the problems of misvalued property are so great that Congress was quite specific about what the charitably inclined have to do to defend their deductions, and we cannot in a single sympathetic case undermine those rules.”

So, ouch. Big, big ouch. (Insert expletive here.) Eighteen million bucks worth of deductions, lost because someone didn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Six million in actual tax savings, down the proverbial drain. We realize it sounds self-serving to tell you to come to us before you make a big financial move. But Joseph Mohamed’s case emphasizes how important this really is. You may not have millions riding on doing it right. But are you really willing to risk tax benefits you truly deserve by doing it yourself?

Disneynature’s newest movie, Chimpanzee, is a documentary masterpiece for all ages. It’s a truly original film that stands out in a multiplex of lookalikes, copies, remakes, and sequels. And Chimpanzee’s cinematography is amazing — the simple beauty of the jungles and the animals stands in contrast to so many of today’s movies all tricked out with 3D gimmicks and computer-generated special effects.

Filmmakers spent four years “embedded” in the lush rainforest of Ivory Coast’s Tai National Park to make the movie, which follows the life of “Oscar,” a predictably adorable young chimp. Oscar learns how to use rocks to open nuts (apparently harder than it looks) and use sticks to go “fishing” for army ants (apparently a real delicacy to chimpanzee foodies). There’s a turf war with a rival community for control over a valuable nut grove. And, this being a Disney movie, Oscar loses his mother to a leopard around the beginning of the third reel. (It’s handled sensitively — there’s nothing to terrify children or grandchildren in the audience.) Losing his mother poses a real threat to Oscar’s life, until, remarkably, he’s “adopted” by Freddy, the community’s alpha male. The film is narrated by Tim Allen, whom even the youngest viewers will recognize as the voice of “Buzz Lightyear” from Disney/Pixar’s mega-successful Toy Story series.

Primatologists have suspected that chimpanzees like Freddy might altruistically adopt orphaned young in their group. But this is the first example of such behavior actually caught on film. (There’s no word on whether Freddy “taxed” the rest of the community for the expenses of caring for Oscar, or whether “tax avoidance” is part of their natural behavior!)

Disney has announced that they are donating a portion of Chimpanzee’s opening-weekend ticket sales to the Jane Goodall Institute for the “See Chimpanzee, Save Chimpanzee” program to protect habitats. Disney will donate 20 cents for every ticket sold, with a minimum donation of $100,000. (The movie grossed $10.2 million over its opening weekend, the highest opening gross in history for any nature documentary.) So — and here at last we come to the tax question of the day — does that mean that if you were one of the first to see it, you can deduct part of your ticket?

Unfortunately, no, that’s not how it works. You got your “money’s worth” from the movie itself, although Disneynature can certainly deduct the contribution on its return. It’s like buying a ticket to a college football game. The college itself may be a not-for-profit organization — but buying a ticket isn’t a “donation” because you get something of value in exchange. (Some colleges let you make donations in exchange for the right to buy season tickets — in those cases, the IRS treats that “right” as being worth 20% of the donation amount and lets you deduct the remaining 80%.)

Deductions for charitable contributions are a mainstay of the tax code. Charitable contributions let you do well for society while you do well for yourself — which of course is something we want to help with, too! We can help you maximize deductions for gifts of used clothing and household accessories. We can help you plan for bigger gifts of cash, cars or boats, art or antiques, appreciated securities, real estate, and even life insurance. And don’t forget, we’re here for the rest of your “community,” too!

A few days ago, I posted that the House approved the Haiti Relief Bill.  On Thursday, the bill was unanimously approved by the Senate and was signed by President Obama on Friday.

In short, the bill makes most charitable contributions for Haiti Relief to be deducted on qualifying taxpayers 2009 tax return, instead of requiring that they wait until they file their 2010 return in order to obtain the tax benefit.

From the Joint Committee on Taxation Technical Explanation:

The provision permits taxpayers to treat charitable contributions of cash made after January 11, 2010, and before March 1, 2010, as contributions made on December 31, 2009, if such contributions were for the purpose of providing relief to victims in areas affected by the earthquake in Haiti that occurred on January 12, 2010. Thus, the effect of the provision is to give calendar-year taxpayers who make Haitian earthquake-related charitable contributions of cash after January 11, 2010, and before March 1, 2010, the opportunity to accelerate their tax benefit. Under the provision, such taxpayers may realize the tax benefit of such contributions by taking a deduction on their 2009 tax return.

The provision also clarifies the recordkeeping requirement for monetary contributions eligible for the accelerated income tax benefits described above. With respect to such contributions, a telephone bill will also satisfy the recordkeeping requirement if it shows the name of the donee organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution. Thus, for example, in the case of a charitable contribution made by text message and chargeable to a telephone or wireless account, a bill from the telecommunications company containing the relevant information will satisfy the recordkeeping requirement.

One thing to note on this bill is that in an extremely rare act of bipartisanship, the bill was passed unanimously in the House and the Senate.  I think that Joe Kristan from the Roth & Company’s Tax Update Blog put it best in Haiti Earthquake Rattles the Tax Law:

“As bad as Haiti is, it’s not the first disaster ever, and one more change to the tax law isn’t going to solve that sad country’s problems. Of course, the proposed changes are more about politicians making a show of concern than actually accomplishing anything.”

The law is going to do very little, if anything, to help the people in Haiti.  I doubt to many people are going to read this and say, “Gee, I wasn’t really going to donate, but since I can deduct it off my taxes for 2009 instead of 2010, here’s a check.”  As Joe put it, it is a “feel good” thing that the politicians are going to make it look like they care.