U.S. Tax Court: Regulations on charitable donation of conservation easement upheld as valid
U.S. Tax Court: Regulations on charitable donations
The U.S. Tax Court today issued a “reviewed opinion” in which the majority upheld the validity of the regulations under section 170 with respect to the rules for charitable donations of conservation easements.
The case is: Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. No. 10 (May 12, 2020). Read the Tax Court’s opinion [PDF 467 KB] (128 pages) that includes concurring and dissenting opinions.
Summary
The taxpayer in 2008 donated a conservation easement to a qualified organization and claimed a charitable contribution deduction under section 170(a).
The easement deed provided that, if the conservation restriction were to be extinguished at some future date, the donee would receive a share of the proceeds equal to the fair market value of the easement on the date the contribution was made. The deed further provided that the donee’s share as thus determined would be reduced by the value of any improvements made by the donor after granting the easement.
The IRS disallowed the deduction, contending (among other things) that the extinguishment clause violated the requirements of Reg. section 1.170A-14(g)(6).
In a related Tax Court memorandum opinion (also released today), the Tax Court held that the easement deed violated the “protected in perpetuity” requirement of section 170(h)(5), as interpreted by Reg. section 1.170A-14(g)(6), because the donee’s share of the extinguishment proceeds: (1) was based on a fixed historical value rather than a proportionate share; and (2) was reduced by the value of any improvements made by the donor.
The taxpayer challenged the validity of the regulation, and this was the subject of this reviewed opinion by the full court.
The Tax Court majority held:
- Reg. section 1.170A-14(g)(6) was properly promulgated and is valid under the Administrative Procedure Act
- The construction of section 170(h)(5) as set forth in Reg. section 1.170A-14(g)(6), was valid under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
© 2024 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
For more detail about the structure of the KPMG global organization please visit https://kpmg.com/governance.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 3712, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.