Kingsfield
Two products How it works PII Tokenizer Writing
Connect the Judge
Home › Research › Tax › Charitable contribution substantiation · $250 written acknowledgment
Kingsfield · Research · Tax

What substantiation is required to deduct a charitable contribution of $250 or more?

Published 2026-06-23 · U.S. federal law

For a charitable gift of $250 or more, the deduction is allowed only if the donor gets a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the charity. That requirement is statutory — Section 170(f)(8) — and a receipt obtained later will not save the deduction.

The answer

The rule

26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(8) denies a deduction for any single contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer obtains a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee organization. The acknowledgment must state the amount of cash and describe any property contributed, and whether the charity provided any goods or services in return (and if so, a good-faith estimate of their value).

Why “contemporaneous” matters

The acknowledgment has to be in hand by the earlier of the date the taxpayer files the return or its due date. A receipt produced later, during an audit, does not cure a missing acknowledgment. For cash gifts, separate recordkeeping rules under the section 170 regulations also apply.

The judged input

What the AI drafted

Submitted to the judge

This is the kind of answer a cloud legal AI returns for the question above. Kingsfield does not write it — it rules on the citations the model put in it. This draft cites two authorities; one of them is wrong.

AI draft as generated, before verification
To deduct a charitable contribution, the donor must be able to substantiate it. Under 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(8), no deduction is allowed for any single gift of $250 or more unless the taxpayer obtains a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the charity stating the amount and whether any goods or services were provided in return. The broader recordkeeping and written-acknowledgment requirements for charitable contributions are set out in 26 U.S.C. § 170(b).

The judge ruled on every citation as the draft used it — it accepted 26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(8) and rejected 26 U.S.C. § 170(b). Here is why.

The verdict

How Kingsfield ruled

Ruled 2026-06-23

Each citation in the draft above was submitted to the Kingsfield judge and ruled against the primary-law corpus — Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation. These are live verdicts, not editorial. Each card shows the claim the draft made and the verbatim authority the verdict was rendered against.

Accept26 U.S.C. § 170(f)(8)

The draft claimed: No deduction is allowed for a charitable contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer substantiates it with a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee organization.

“§ 170(f)(8)(A) No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer substantiates the contribution by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee organization that meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).”

Cite found; proposition supported by the cited text.

Reject26 U.S.C. § 170(b)

The draft claimed: Section 170(b) sets out the recordkeeping and contemporaneous-written-acknowledgment substantiation requirements for charitable contributions.

Cite found, but the cited text does not support the proposition. 26 U.S.C. 170(b) sets the percentage-of-adjusted-gross-income limitations on the charitable-contribution deduction, not the substantiation requirements; the contemporaneous-written-acknowledgment rule is 26 U.S.C. 170(f)(8). Regenerate with the correct authority.

Run your own work through the judge

Kingsfield rules on every citation, quote, and proposition your AI produces, against the primary law we cover. Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation, with a signed Audit Capsule.

Connect the Judge See the architecture

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The draft shown is an illustration of a typical AI answer; verdicts reflect the cited authority in the Kingsfield corpus as of the ruling date shown above.

Kingsfield

The judge for legal AI.
A WalkerNash Development LLC product.

© 2026 WalkerNash Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Built in the United States. No third-party trackers.
Product
  • Two products
  • How it works
  • Audit Capsule
  • Practice areas
  • Cloud Judge · MCP
  • PII Tokenizer
For Firms
  • Pricing
  • Privilege
  • DPA
  • Trust posture
  • Research
  • Verified attorneys
  • Status
Company
  • About WalkerNash
  • Crucible (compliance)
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Press
v0.9.4 · 2026.05.26kingsfield.ai