Timing is Everything in Easement Donations, or Is It?

Posted on July 22, 2015 by admin

“There is a tide in the affairs of men which when taken at the flood leads on to fortune.”

William Shakespeare

Shakespeare understood the importance of timing to success. Apparently, the Tax Court holds a similar view when it comes to charitable donations of conservation easements.

This is our third post on the Tax Court’s opinion in Bosque Canyon Ranch. The memorandum decision isn’t necessarily an important case; it didn’t establish any new precedents for the Court. However, there is quite a bit about modern conservation easements packed into a fairly short opinion, which gives us an opportunity to unpack some of what is there.

Today, we look at the Court’s conclusion that the property transfers between the two Bosque Canyon limited partnerships and their partners were disguised sales. (Click here for a more detailed case summary.)

A transfer of partnership property to a partner within two years of a cash (or other) contribution by that partner is presumed to be a disguised sale under IRC §707. The Bosque Canyon partnerships received cash and transferred property to partners within a two year window. That timing is not in question.

The presumption in IRC §707 may be refuted by facts and circumstances showing that the transfer did not constitute a sale. Treas. Reg. §1.707-3(b)(2) suggests 10 circumstances when a sale might be present. The Court identified five of those factors in its opinion.

the timing and amount of the distributions to the limited partners were determinable with reasonable certainty at the time the partnerships accepted the limited partners’ payments;
the limited partners had legally enforceable rights, pursuant to the LP agreements, to receive their Homesite parcels and the appurtenant rights;
the transactions effectuated exchanges of the benefits and burdens of ownership relating to the Homesite parcels;
the distributions to the partners were disproportionately large in relation to the limited partners’ interests in partnership profits; and
the limited partners received their Homesite parcels in fee simple without an obligation to return them to the partnerships.

When the transfers between the partnership and partners are not simultaneous, an additional rule provides that a disguised sale occurs only if “the subsequent transfer is not dependent on the entrepreneurial risks of partnership operations.” Treas. Reg. §1.707-3(b)(1)(ii). The timing of the transfers was not in dispute either. They were not simultaneous.

The timing issue, however, came in the context of entrepreneurial risk. The taxpayers argued that the limited partners’ contributions would be at risk if the anticipated conservation easements were not granted. The Court rejected this argument based on the timing of the easement grants. Unfortunately, the conservation easements for both partnerships were granted before the limited partnership agreements were executed. The Court found that the payments were not subject to the entrepreneurial risks of the partnership because the easements were secured before the partnerships were formed. In the case of Bosque Canyon Ranch I, the easement was granted just two days before the agreement execution, prompting us to recall Maxwell Smart’s famous line.

Given the Court’s determination on entrepreneurial risk, there was no need to parse the specific facts and circumstances of these transfers, or whether the five factors identified by the court were enough to warrant disguised sale treatment. It leaves open the question whether similar, or even slightly different, facts and circumstances would be sufficient to find a disguised sale. We don’t know. But with time, and another case, there’s a fair chance we will.

Tax Court Denies Texas Conservation Easement

Posted on July 20, 2015 by admin

Last week we wrote about the Tax Court’s application of Belk v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 1 (2013) in the Bosque Canyon Ranch case. Here’s a more detailed description of the case.

Bosque Canyon Ranch (“BCR”) is a 3,729 acre-tract in Bosque County, Texas. Petitioners formed BCR I, a Texas limited partnership, in July 2003. BCR I made $2.2 million in improvements to BC Ranch between 2003 and 2005.

In 2004, BCR I began marketing limited partnership interest (“LP units”) at $350,000 per unit. Each purchaser would become a limited partner in BCR I and the partnership would subsequently distribute a fee simple interest in a five-acre parcel of property (the “Homesite parcel”) to that limited partner. Each Homesite Parcel owner had the right to build a house on the parcel and use BC Ranch for various activities. The distribution of Homesite Parcels was conditioned on BCR I granting a conservation easement to the North American Land Trust (“NALT”) for 1,750 acres of BC Ranch.

BCR I granted the conservation easement to NALT on December 29, 2005. The land subject to the conservation easement could not be used for residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, or agricultural purposes. BCR I had 24 LP purchasers in 2005 with payments totaling $8,400,000. BCR I obtained a certified appraisal report effective November 28, 2005, valuing the conservation easement at $8,400,000.

BCR II was formed in December 2005 as a Texas limited partnership and BCR I deeded 1,866 acres of BC Ranch to BCR II. In 2006, BCR II began marketing Homesite parcels with offering documents were substantially similar to that of BCR I. BCR II granted NALT a conservation easement on September 14, 2007. BCR II collected payments of $9,957,500 from 23 purchasers and obtained an appraisal valuing the 2007 easement at $7,500,000.

After all of the transfers, the 47 limited partners of BCR I and BCR II owned approximately 235 acres and 3,482 of the remaining 3,509 acres were subject to the 2005 and 2007 NALT easements.

Procedural History

BCR I filed a 2005 Form 1065 reporting capital contributions of $8,400,000 and claiming an $8,400,000 charitable contribution deduction related to the 2005 NALT easement. The IRS sent petitioner a 2005 FPAA on December 29, 2008, determining that BCR I was not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction. The IRS also determined that petitioners were subject to either accuracy-related or gross valuation misstatement penalties. IRS counsel submitted an amended answer on April 26, 2010, contending that the BCR I transactions at issue were sales of real property.

BCR II filed a 2007 Form 1065 reporting capital contributions of $9,956,500 and claiming an $7,500,000 charitable contribution deduction related to the 2007 NALT easement. The IRS sent petitioner a 2007 FPAA on August 23, 2011, determining that BCR II was not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction and that petitioners were subject to either accuracy-related or gross valuation misstatement penalties. IRS counsel did not allege that the BCR II transactions were sales of real property. The Court consolidated petitioners’ cases for trial.

Charitable Contribution Deductions

The Homesite parcel owners and the NALT could, by mutual agreement, modify the Homesite boundaries. The deed forbids a decrease in “the overall property subject to the easement” and changes in the “exterior boundaries of the property subject to the easement.” The deed also provides that the boundary changes only occur between unburdened parcels (the Homesite lots).

The Court found that the property protected by the 2005 and 2007 easements could lose this protection as a result of boundary modifications allowed after the easements were granted. Citing Belk v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 1 (2013), the Court held that the restrictions were not granted in perpetuity as required under IRC § 170(h)(2)(C) because the 2005 and 2007 deeds allow modifications between the Homesite parcels and the property subject to the easements. Thus, the easements are not qualified real property interests required under IRC § 170(h)(1)(A). (There are some distinct factual differences from Belk that we noted in an earlier post found here).

Judge Foley also took issue with the lack of documentation establishing the condition of the property provided by petitioners to NALT as required by Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(5)(i). The Court found that the documentation was “unreliable, incomplete, and insufficient to establish the condition of the relevant property on the date the respective easements were granted.”

Disguised Sale

Judge Foley found that the partnerships deeded the Homesite properties to the limited partners within five months of the limited partners’ payments for the property. Under Treas. Reg. 1.707-3(c)(1) and 1.707-6(a) transfers between a partnership and a partner within a two-year period are presumed to be a sale of the property to the partner unless the facts and circumstances clearly establish that the transfers do not constitute a sale.

Petitioners argued that the partners’ payments would be at risk, pursuant to the terms of the LP agreements, if the easements were not granted. The Court rejected this argument based on its finding that the 2005 and 2007 easements were granted prior to the execution of the BCR I and BCR II LP agreements, respectively. Thus, the Court held that BCR I and BCR II were required to recognize income on any gains related to the 24 and 23 disguised sales by each limited partnership, respectively.

Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalties

Judge Foley held that the petitioners were liable for a 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty under IRC § 6662(h). Petitioner’s argued that they acted reasonably and in good faith by procuring a qualified appraisal from a qualified appraiser and by relying on a memorandum from their CPA. Judge Foley found that while these actions constituted a good faith investigation of the easement’s value, BCR I did not provide NALT with sufficient documentation of the condition of the property being donated and affirmed the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty against BCR I for 2005.

For returns filed after August 17, 2006, the gross valuation misstatement penalty is modified by Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-5(g) when the determined value of the property is zero and the value claimed is greater than zero. Additionally, taxpayers who file returns after 2006 can no longer claim a reasonable cause defense for gross valuation misstatements relating to charitable contribution deductions. (Though reasonable cause is still a valid defense for substantial valuation misstatements. See, IRC § 6664(c)(3).) Thus, the Court held that BCR II is liable for the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty relating to the 2007 tax year.

Read the full opinion here: Bosque Canyon Ranch L.P., v. Commissioner, TC-Memo. 2015-130

Conservation Easement Yields New Rule on Reasonable Cause Penalty Defense

Posted on May 16, 2014 by admin

The Tax Court disallowed another charitable deduction for the donation of a façade easement in Boston’s South End Historic District. This time the decision was based on valuation principles, not technical foot faults, and the taxpayers were able to avoid certain penalties.

In Chandler v. Commissioner, 142 TC No. 16 (2014), the taxpayers owned two homes in Boston’s South End Historic District, the Claremont Property and the West Newton Property. The homes were purchased in 2003 and 2005, respectively. The taxpayers entered into an agreement in 2004 to grant the National Architectural Trust (“NAT”) a façade easement on the Claremont Property. They then executed a similar arrangement when they purchased the West Newton Property in 2005.

The taxpayers used an NAT recommended expert to value the easements. He valued the Claremont easement at $191,400 and the West Newton easement at $371,250. The taxpayers took charitable deductions related to the easements of more than $450,000 between 2004 and 2006.

The IRS did not challenge the easements’ compliance with §170(h). However, the IRS did allege that the easements had no value because they did not meaningfully restrict the taxpayers’ properties beyond the provisions under local law. The taxpayers’ countered that the easement restrictions were broader than local law because they limited construction on the entire exterior of the home and required the owners to make repairs. Local law only restricted construction on portions of the property visible from a public way and did not require owners to make repairs. The taxpayers’ also noted that the easement subjected the property to stricter monitoring and enforcement of the restrictions. The Tax Court, citing its recent opinion in Kaufman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2014-52, (discussed below), rejected the taxpayers’ arguments because “buyers do not perceive any difference between the competing sets of restrictions.”

The only remaining issue was valuation. The taxpayers abandoned their original appraisals and presented new expert testimony at trial. The taxpayers’ new expert used the comparable sales approach to calculate a before value of $1,385,000 for the Claremont Property and $2,950,000 for the West Newton Property. The taxpayers’ expert chose seven properties for comparison: four properties in Boston and three properties in New York City. On the basis of data from these properties, he estimated that the taxpayers’ easements diminished the value of both properties by 16%.

The Tax Court found the taxpayers’ expert unpersuasive. The Court dismissed the three New York City comparables because they “tell us little about easement values in Boston’s unique market.” The court also found that three of the four Boston properties were “obviously flawed.” The Court took particular exception to the expert’s use of a comparable unencumbered property that was not actually unencumbered. The Court stated that the “error undermines [the expert’s] credibility concerning not only this comparison, but the entire report.”

The Tax Court also found the respondent’s expert report unpersuasive. The respondent’s expert examined nine encumbered Boston properties that sold between 2005 and 2011. He compared the sales prices immediately before and after the imposition of the easements. Each property sold for more after it had been encumbered by the easement. However, the expert failed to account for significant renovations that took place on many of the properties after they were encumbered. Thus, the Court found the expert’s analysis unpersuasive because “it does not isolate the effect of easements on the properties in his sample.” However, in the final analysis, the Court sided with the IRS and disallowed the taxpayer’s deductions.

However, the Court did accept the taxpayers’ reasonable cause defense for gross valuation misstatement penalties in 2004 and 2005. Unfortunately, the reasonable cause exception for gross valuation misstatements of charitable contribution property was eliminated with the Pension Protection Act of 2006, so the Court denied the taxpayers’ reasonable cause defense for the 2006 tax period.

Read the full opinion here: Chandler v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. No. 16

Supreme Court Adopts IRS Position on Jurisdiction and Application of Partnership Penalties

Posted on December 4, 2013 by admin

Gary Woods and his partner, Billy Joe McCombs, generated substantial tax losses using the COBRA tax shelter. The COBRA shelter used offsetting options to inflate the basis of property distributed by a partnership, which is then contributed and sold to another partnership or pass through entity, resulting in a large tax loss without a corresponding economic loss. Messrs. Woods & McCombs reaped ordinary income losses of $13 million and capital losses of $32 million when they used the COBRA structure to purchase and sell $3.2 million of options.

After the IRS disallowed their losses, Woods filed a refund claim (which was denied) and pursued that claim with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court. After Woods prevailed on certain issues in the 5th Circuit, the government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. The case selected by the high court to resolve a split in the circuits. The Fifth, Federal and D.C. Circuits had all found for the taxpayers. Other circuits had adopted the government’s position.

The Supreme Court addressed two questions in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia. The Court first considered whether the district court has jurisdiction under TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) to determine valuation-related penalties at the partnership level. This is important because partnerships are not taxed as entities for Federal income tax purposes. The income and losses determined at the partnership level pass-through to each partner where they are taxed on the partner’s individual or corporate tax return.

One purpose of TEFRA was to allow determinations at the partnership level and prevent the need for multiple proceedings to determine the tax liabilities of items common to all partners in the partnership. The jurisdictional question has been widely litigated and this decision will affect many millions of dollars of pending tax penalties.

The second, related, question was whether the 40% gross valuation overstatement penalty under I.R.C. Sec. 6662 applied when a partnership was found to not have economic substance. A partnership lacking in economic substance ceases to exist for tax purposes.

The Court ruled for the government on both questions. On the first question, the Court held that there was jurisdiction to consider the penalty question at the partnership level. The court essentially adopted the position suggested at oral argument by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart that “any question that will necessarily have the same answer for all partners should be presumptively be resolved at the partnership level.” Justice Scalia opined that “deferring consideration of those arguments until partner-level proceedings would replicate the precise evil that TEFRA sets out to remedy: duplicative proceedings, potentially leading to inconsistent results, on a question that applies equally to all of the partners.”

Relying on the “plain language” of the penalty the Court also held that the 40% substantial or gross valuation penalty applied to the overstated basis of the partners. “[O]nce the partnerships were deemed not to exist for tax purposes, no partner could legitimately claim a basis in the partnership greater than zero.” The Court adopted the observation of Fifth Circuit Judge Prado that “the basis understatement and the transaction’s lack of economic substance are inextricably intertwined” and therefore the penalties were “attributable to” the overstatement of basis that occurred once the partnership ceased to be recognized for tax purposes.

In an final note of interest to tax practitioners, Justice Scalia rejected the taxpayer’s reliance on the “Blue Book” – a publication of the Joint Committee of Taxation often published after the enactment of tax legislation explaining the legislative history of the statute – and clearly stated that this publication is not a relevant source of Congressional intent.

Read the entire opinion here:
U.S. v Woods, 517 U.S. __, No. 12-562 (Dec. 3. 2013).

Conservation Easement Deduction Denied as Quid Pro Quo for Subdivision Approval

Posted on February 7, 2013 by admin

The Tax Court denied the taxpayers’ deduction for the donation of a conservation easement where the taxpayer granted the easement pursuant to negotiations with a local zoning authority for approval of a subdivision exemption.

The deductibility of conservation easement donations is drawn from the general rule allowing the deduction of charitable contributions under IRC §170. Charitable contributions must be freely given, i.e., a gift, to qualify for the deduction. If the contribution is made in exchange for a specific benefit, i.e., a quid pro quo, then it does not qualify for the deduction.

The Tax Court found that the taxpayer’s donation of the easement was not a gift because it was “part of a quid pro quo exchange for Boulder County’s approving his subdivision exemption request.” The court also approved the application of the 20% substantial understatement penalty under IRC §6662(b)(2) against the taxpayer. The court denied the taxpayer’s reasonable cause argument to avoid the penalty, specifically noting the lack of testimony from the CPA who prepared the returns and invoking the “Wichita Terminal rule” to find for the government. The Wichita Terminal rule is drawn from a 67 year-old Tax Court case and generally provides that when a litigant fails to produce the testimony of a person that might be expected to testify, that failure gives rise to a presumption that the testimony would be unfavorable to the litigant’s case.

While the taxpayer lost on the 20% penalty, the court did reject the government’s argument for the 40% gross valuation penalty under IRC §6662(h)(2). In support of its position the commissioner alleged that the appraisal:

(1) was made more than 60 days before the grant of the second conservation easement; (2) does not describe the property; (3) does not contain the expected date of contribution; (4) does not contain the terms of the second conservation easement; (5) does not include the appraised fair market value of the second conservation easement on the expected date of contribution; and (6) does not provide the method of valuation Mr. Roberts used in that the report does not adequately identify the highest and best use of the property.

The taxpayer urged that the penalty did not apply under the exception provided in IRC §6664(c)(2) because the taxpayer obtained a “qualified appraisal” from a “qualified appraiser” and made a good faith investigation of the value of the property before making the donation. The court sided with the taxpayer and rejected the government’s arguments. The court voiced its particular concern with the government’s claim that the appraisal was not qualified because did not provide a method of valuation. The court noted that the appraisal specifically identified the well-established “before and after” valuation method and repeated, though without citation, the same concerns expressed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Scheidleman v. Commissioner, that is, that the government’s claim really was directed at the reliability of the report and not its validity or “qualification”.

Read the entire opinion here:
Pollard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2013-38