A Giving Tuesday Reminder: Document Your Donations

The Besaw case shows that the IRS focuses on substantiation, not sentiment, when reviewing noncash charitable contributions.

Federal tax law encourages generosity by providing advantageous treatment of gifts, inheritances, and charitable contributions. But taxpayers must fulfill the requirements necessary to secure those advantages.

Giving property to nonprofit organizations provides a great example of the potential complexity and pitfalls of tax-deductible charity. A recent U.S. Tax Court case demonstrates how a seemingly minor technicality can negate a deduction—meaning a good deed is only as good as the documentation substantiating it.

Donating a pile of unused household goods may generate a tax deduction, but only if it’s properly documented and reported. Generated by AI.

Background of Besaw v. Commissioner

In Besaw v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. 2025-7, the taxpayers—John Henry Besaw and his spouse—claimed a deduction for noncash charitable contributions totaling $6,760 on their timely filed 2019 joint federal income tax return. They included Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, along with worksheets identifying the names and addresses of the donee organizations and short descriptions of the donated property.

However, the return lacked two key pieces of information regarding the contributions: the dates of the donations and the values of the donated items. The IRS examined the return. In response, Besaw reconstructed the information from Form 8283 and submitted it to the IRS in 2022.

The IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency on August 10, 2022. The Notice explained that Besaw failed to substantiate the contributions adequately. Importantly, the government did not challenge the generosity; instead, it challenged the substantiation, and that proved fatal for the taxpayer.

Valuing and substantiating noncash charitable contributions

The amount of a noncash charitable contribution is generally the fair market value of the property at the time of the contribution, reduced as determined under IRC §170(e).¹ This generally limits the potentially deductible value of the contribution to the lower of FMV or the taxpayer’s basis in the property.

Any noncash contribution over $250 requires a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee organization, which must include a description (but not the value) of the property.² Contemporaneous means the taxpayer obtains the acknowledgment on or before the earlier of the date the taxpayer files a return for the tax year of the contribution or the due date (including extensions) of that return.³

Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13 provides recordkeeping and return requirements for deductions for charitable contributions. Specifically for noncash donations under $5,000, a taxpayer must keep a receipt (or letter) from the donee organization showing the following information:

• The name of the organization;

• The date and location of the contribution; and

• A description of the property in reasonably sufficient detail.⁴

If it is impractical to obtain a receipt—such as at a remote drop-off location—the taxpayer must maintain a reliable written record that includes the following information for each item donated:

• The name and address of the organization;

• The date and location of the contribution;

• A description of the property in reasonably sufficient detail;

• The FMV of the property at the time of the contribution; and

• The cost or other basis of the property.⁵

For property valued over $500, the taxpayer also must record the date and manner of acquisition of the property.⁶

Besaw’s failure to substantiate adequately

Despite reporting noncash contributions on Form 8283 and attached statements, Besaw failed to substantiate the contributions adequately on several points:

• First, the return did not include values or dates of the donations.⁷

• Next, the receipts Besaw provided during examination, although containing dates and signatures, did not identify the property donated.

• Finally, the reconstructed documents submitted in 2022 were not contemporaneous.

Given these failures, the Court held that Besaw did not adequately satisfy the substantiation requirements of IRC §170(e)(1) and Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13. The primary issue was the lack of property descriptions on the donation receipts.

Lessons learned from Besaw

The key takeaway from the Besaw case is the necessity of adequate documentation for noncash charitable contributions. That means obtaining receipts that include dates, locations, and descriptions of the donated property.

Taxpayers often rely on donee organizations to provide proper documentation; however, many preparers sort through (mostly blank) Goodwill receipts each year. Proactively communicating the requirements can help clients understand what they need to record their donations sufficiently. Here’s a helpful checklist:

1. Get a contemporaneous receipt that includes the organization’s name and address, the date and location of the donation, and a reasonably detailed description of each item donated. “Household goods” may not suffice if the taxpayer claims a significant deduction.

2. Maintain a separate list of the items donated, including acquisition date (or a reasonable estimate), cost, condition, and value. Photos can help.

3. Be careful as the claimed value of the donation approaches $5,000. Crossing this threshold requires a qualified appraisal.

4. Prepare Form 8283 when total noncash contributions exceed $500. Make sure the appraiser and donee organization sign it, if necessary.

Charitable contributions are a great way to support organizations and communities in need. They can also provide a benefit for taxpayers, but only if they follow the rules.

---

Thanks for reading! This post is part of a Giving Tuesday collaboration with other great tax experts writing on Substack. Please check out their publications if you haven’t already:

• Tom Talks Taxes by Thomas Gorczynski, EA, USTCP

• Josh & Taxes by Josh Youngblood, EA

• Matt’s Tax Firm Insights by Matt Gaylor, EA

• Financial Guardians by Brad Messner, EA

• The Buzz about Taxes by Manasa Nadig, EA

• Tiffany Huntington, EA

1. Treas. Reg. §1.170-1(c)(1).

2. IRC §170(f)(8); Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13(f).

3. IRC §170(f)(8)(C); Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13(f)(3).

4. Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13(b)(1). Note that the regulation does not require the donee organization to list the value on the receipt.

5. Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13(b)(2).

6. Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13(b)(3).

7. At trial, Besaw stated that he understood values were not required. The Court described this as a misunderstanding of the requirements.