Exogeneity vs. Endogeneity in Section 170’s Quid Pro Quo Test

8 Pages Posted: 24 Oct 2018 Last revised: 2 Dec 2019

See all articles by Timothy M. Todd

Timothy M. Todd

Liberty University School of Law

Date Written: 2018

Abstract

This article advances an exogenous-endogenous distinction for purposes of determining and calculating quid pro quos under section 170. This test holds that exogenous benefits — benefits that arise independently of, or arise outside of, the taxing authority — are properly considered quid pro quos (and should reduce the amount deductible); whereas, endogenous benefits — benefits that arise from or within the specific federal or state taxing authority — are not quid pro quos and should not be considered in determining the amount deductible under section 170.

The exogenous-endogenous distinction advanced by this article comports with the policy and intent of section 170, provides a way to demarcate quid pro quos in a consistent manner (irrespective of donee), and clarifies why section 170 need not consider the federal tax benefit associated with it, but must consider any associate state tax benefit.

Keywords: tax, charity, charitable deduction, SALT, SALT deduction, state and local, TCJA, SALT workaround

JEL Classification: K1, K00, K19, K2, K29, K34

Suggested Citation

Todd, Timothy M., Exogeneity vs. Endogeneity in Section 170’s Quid Pro Quo Test (2018). State Tax Notes, Vol. 90, pp. 37-44, Oct. 1, 2018, Tax Notes, Vol. 161, pp. 65-72, Oct. 1, 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3268089

Timothy M. Todd (Contact Author)

Liberty University School of Law ( email )

1971 University Boulevard
Lynchburg, VA 24515
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
109
Abstract Views
1,593
Rank
454,440
PlumX Metrics