US TAX COURT ges US TAX COURT. RECEIVED % efiled JUN * JUN :47 PM

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "US TAX COURT ges US TAX COURT. RECEIVED % efiled JUN * JUN :47 PM"

Transcription

1 US TAX COURT ges US TAX COURT CLC RECEIVED % efiled JUN * JUN :47 PM UNITED STATES TAX COURT ERNEST & BARBARA KAFKA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Re spondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No ) ) Filed Electronically ) ) RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONDENT MOVES, pursuant to the provisions of T.C. Rule 121, for a partial summary adjudication in respondent's favor in this case upon the issues of (1) whether petitioners' valuation report, prepared by Jerome Haims Realty, Inc. (the "JHR report"), is a qualified appraisal as defined in section 155(a) (4) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub. L , 98 Stat. 691, and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3); (2) whether petitioners attached to their return a fully completed appraisal summary as required by DEFRA 155 (a) (1) (B) and (a) (3) and Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (2) (B) ; (3) whether the doctrine of substantial compliance applies to the JHR report and appraisal summary; and (4) whether petitioners contributed a conservation easement in The granting of this motion will completely resolve the non-cash contribution deduction at issue in this case, leaving for trial only the deductibility of a cash contribution for the

2 Docket No taxable year 2003 and whether petitioners are liable for penalties under I.R.C (h) (for the taxable years 2003 and 2004) and I.R.C. 6662(a) (for the taxable year 2003). IN SUPPORT THEREOF, respondent respectfully states: I. Background 1. At the time of filing the petition in this case, petitioners resided at 23 East 924 Street, New York, NY The pleadings in this case were closed on February 16, This motion is made at least 30 days after the date that the pleadings in this case were closed and within such time as not to delay the trial. Tax Court Rule 121(a). 4. In support of this motion, respondent is filing a Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("memorandum" or "respondent's memorandum"), and incorporates that memorandum into this motion. 5. In the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based, respondent determined deficiencies of tax in the amount of $113, and $21,963.00, for the taxable years 2003 and 2004, respectively. Attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of attorney Derek W. Kelley filed in connection with this motion is a copy of the notice of deficiency. The deficiency amounts were the result of a disallowed noncash charitable deduction for 2003

3 Docket No in the amount of $405, and a disallowed carryover noncash charitable deduction for 2004 in the amount of $144, Respondent determined that petitioners had not established that all of the requirements of I.R.C. 170 had been satisfied for the noncash charitable contribution of a qualified conservation contribution, and, alternatively, had not established that the value of the contributed property was $550,000 as claimed on the 2003 return.1 6. The noncash charitable contribution deduction at issue for 2003 and the carryover noncash charitable contribution deduction for 2004 both relate to a Conservation Deed of Easement (the "Conservation Deed") granted by petitioner Barbara Kafka to the Trust for Architectural Easements f/k/a National Architectural Trust (the "Trust"), for 23 East 92" Street, New York, New York, a five story, two family residence (the "Property"). The notice of deficiency also asserts penalties under I.R.C (h) in the amounts of $45, and $8, for 2003 and 2004, respectively. Also, although not part of the notice of deficiency, respondent filed an amended answer asserting a disallowance of a 2003 cash donation, resulting in an increase in the 2003 deficiency of $15, and a penalty under I.R.C. 6662(a) of $3, A trial on these issues will still be necessary if the Court grants this motion for partial summary judgment.

4 Docket No The Conservation Deed is dated December 10, 2003 and was signed by a representative of the Trust on December 12, The Conservation Deed was recorded on March 13, 2004 in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York. Attached as Exhibit B to the declaration of attorney Derek W. Kelley is a copy of the Conservation Deed along with the accompanying recording and Endorsement Cover Page showing a "Recorded/ Filed" date of " ". 9. In connection with the easement grant, petitioner Barbara Kafka obtained a report from Jerome Haims Realty, Inc. entitled "Complete Summary Appraisal of a Historical Preservation Easement Located at 23 East 92 a Street, New York, New York" (the "JHR report"). Attached as Exhibit C to the declaration of attorney Derek W. Kelley is a copy of the JHR report The JHR report states that it was prepared on December 16, 2003 and relates to a valuation and inspection of the Property on October 22, The JHR report was obtained from Jerome Haims Realty, Inc. pursuant to a summons after petitioners failed to provide an appraisal report during the examination.

5 Docket No Petitioners attached to their 2003 income tax return a partially completed page 2 of a Form 8283 (the "Form 8283" or "petitioners' Form 8283"). Attached as Exhibit D to the declaration of attorney Derek W. Kelley is a copy of the Form In Section B, Part I, line 5(a) of the Form 8283 petitioners describe the donated property as "23 East 9240 St.". On line (5) (b) petitioners describe the donated property further as "Historic Preservation Easement." 13. Section B, Part I, lines 5(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Form 8283 are blank. 14. Section B, Part III, of the Form 8283 states that the date of appraisal of the donated property was October 22, Section B, Part IV, of the Form 8283 states that the donated property was received by the donee on December 11, II. The JHR Report Is Not a "Qualified Appraisal" 15. The JHR report fails to include a method of valuation for determining the fair market value of the façade easement as required by DEFRA 155(a) (4) and Treas. Reg A- 13(c) (3) (ii) (J). 16. The JHR report utilizes what it calls the "Court Case History Measurement" method as its so-called method to determine

6 Docket No the correct value of the façade easement. This is no method at all. 17. The JHR report fails to include a "specific basis" for the valuation as required by Sec. 155(a) (4) (B) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (K). 18. The JHR report uses comparable sales as a basis for determining the before value, but uses no basis at all for determining the after value and no basis for determining the easement value. 19. The JHR report fails to include the fair market value on the date of contribution as required by Section 155(a) (4) (B) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (C) and (I), by omitting the date or expected date of contribution. 20. The JHR report was not timely, as required by Treas, Reg A-13(c) (i) (A). 21. The JHR report states that it was prepared on December 16, 2003, but the Conservation Deed was not recorded until March 13, Under applicable New York law, N.Y. Env. Law (4), March 13, 2004 was the easement's effective date. 22. The JHR report does not describe the property appraised as required by DEFRA 155(a) (4) (A) and Treas Reg A- 13(c) (3) (ii) (A).

7 Docket No The JHR report attaches a blank Conservation Deed of Easement form, which fails to list the address of the subject property, the legal description of the property, the day the easement was granted, the donor, and the address of the donor. 24. Therefore, the JHR report is not a "qualified appraisal" under Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3). III. Petitioners Failed to Attach a Fully Completed Appraisal Summary 25. DEFRA 155(a) (1) (B) and (3) requires an appraisal summary to be attached to returns claiming noncash contribution deduction in excess of $5,000. Treas. Reg A-13(c) (2) (2B) states that for charitable contribution deductions in excess of $5,000, a taxpayer must substantiate a claimed charitable contribution deduction by attaching a "fully completed appraisal summary" to the tax return on which the deduction for the contribution is first claimed. 26. Treas. Reg A-(13) (c) (4) (ii) (lb) requires that an appraisal summary include a description of the property in sufficient detail for a person who is not generally familiar with the type of property to ascertain that the property that was appraised is the property that was contributed. 27. The Form 8283 fails to adequately describe the donated property.

8 Docket No Section B, Part I, lines 5(a) and (b) of the Form 8283 describe the façade easement as merely "23 East 92" St." and "Historic Preservation Easement", respectively. 29. Section B, Part I, lines 5(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Form 8283 are blank, so that the Form 8283 fails to state the manner and the date of the acquisition of the property, the cost or other basis of the property, or whether the contribution of the easement was made in a bargain sale, as required by DEFRA 155(a) (1) (c) and Treas. Reg A-(13) (c) (4) (ii) (D), (E) and (H). 30. Section B, Part III of the summary states that the date of appraisal is October 22, 2003 and Section B, Part IV states that the donee accepted the donated property on December 11, The Form 8283 fails to include the appraised fair market value of the property on the date of the contribution as required by Treas. Reg A-(13) (c) (4) (ii) (J). IV. The Doctrine of Substantial compliance Does Not Apply in This Case 32. Petitioners may argue that even if the JHR report and appraisal summary did not meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements, they have substantially complied.

9 Docket No Section 155(a) of DEFRA sets forth clear mandates that a taxpayer claiming a deduction for a charitable contribution must substantiate a noncash contribution in the manner set forth in the statutes and regulations as prescribed by the Secretary. 34. The Secretary has prescribed detailed regulations for taxpayers claiming deductions in excess of $5,000 for certain charitable contributions of property. See generally Treas. Reg A-13(c). This regulation, including Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (2) (i), was promulgated pursuant to the Congressional mandate in section 155 of DEFRA. 35. DEFRA and the mandated regulations thereunder must receive deference under the standard set forth in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, (1984). 36. Consequently, the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to the "qualified appraisal" and "appraisal summary" requirements in this case. They must be strictly construed. Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (appeal pending, 2d Cir.). V. The Conservation Easement Was Not Transferred in Under New York law the Conservation Deed did not become effective until it was recorded on March 13, 2004.

10 Docket No Since the Conservation Deed did not become effective until 2004, for purposes of I.R.C. 170 the easement was not transferred in 2003 and petitioners are not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for the easement in VI. Conclusion 39. The JHR report is not a qualified appraisal as defined in section 155(a) (4) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3 40. Petitioners did not attach to their return a fully completed appraisal summary as required by DEFRA 155(a) (1) (B) and (a) (3) and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (2) (B). 41. The doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to the JHR report and appraisal summary. 42. For purposes of I.R.C. 170 the easement was not transferred in Respondent respectfully states that counsel of record has reviewed the administrative file and on the basis of the review of the file and the pleadings, concludes that there remains no genuine issue of material fact for trial upon the issues stated above. 44. Petitioners object to the granting of this motion.

11 Docket No WHEREFORE, respondent requests that this motion be granted. WILLIAM J. WILKINS Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service Date: D REK W. KELLEY Attorney (Small Business/Self-Employed) Tax Court Bar No. KD0442 Tip O'Neill Bldg. 10 Causeway Street Room 401 Boston, MA Telephone: (617) OF COUNSEL: THOMAS R. THOMAS Division Counsel (Small Business/Self-Employed) FRANCES F. REGAN Area Counsel (Small Business/Self-Employed:Area 1) JANET F. APPEL Associate Area Counsel (Small Business/Self-Employed)

12 US TAX COURT CLC p3es oo US TAX COURT efiled RECEIVED JUN :50 PM * JUN UNITED STATES TAX COURT ERNEST & BARBARA KAFKA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No ) ) Filed Electronically ) ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT' S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respondent files this Memorandum of Law in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment on the questions of (1) whether petitioners' valuation report, prepared by Jerome Haims Realty, Inc. (the "JHR report"), is a qualified appraisal as defined in section 155 (a) (4) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub. L , 98 Stat. 691, and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3); (2) whether petitioners attached to their return a fully completed appraisal summary as required by DEFRA 155 (a) (1) (B) and (a) (3) and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (2) (B); (3) whether the doctrine of substantial compliance applies to the JHR report and appraisal summary; and (4) whether petitioners contributed a conservation easement in respondent's motion should be For the reasons discussed below, granted. I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE WHERE THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT This Court may grant summary judgment where there is no SERVED Jun

13 Docket No genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. T.C. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). Disputes over facts that are not outcomedeterminative will not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not weigh the evidence, but determines "whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 249. In making this determination, the Court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and views all inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, (1986), citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 745, 749 (2006); L.P. Consulting Group, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 238, 240 (2005). II. PETITIONERS FAILED TO OBTAIN A "QUALIFIED APPRAISAL" A deduction for a charitable contribution is allowed only if verified by the taxpayer under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. I.R.C. 170(a) (1). In section 155(a) of DEFRA Congress provided a mechanism for the Commissioner to obtain sufficient return information to deal more effectively with the

14 Docket No prevalent use of charitable contribution overvaluations. Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258, 265 (1997) (citing S. Comm. on Finance, Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, S. Rep (Vol. I), at (S. Comm. Print 1984), and Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (J. Comm. Print 1985)), aff'd without published opinion, 166 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1998), In section 155(a) (1) of DEFRA, Congress addressed the potential for abuse in valuing noncash contributions, directing the Secretary to prescribe regulations under I.R.C. 170(a) (1) requiring taxpayers claiming charitable contribution deductions under I.R.C. 170 in excess of $5,000 to obtain qualified appraisals of the property contributed. Pursuant to detailed directions in section 155(a) of DEFRA, the Secretary issued Treas. Reg A-13(c), stating that a deduction for a noncash contribution in excess of $5,000 will not be allowed unless the taxpayer obtains a "qualified appraisal" of the property contributed. DEFRA 155(a) (1) (A); Treas. Reg A-13(c) (2) (i) (A). No deduction is allowed for a contribution of property for which an appraisal is required unless the "statutorily imposed" requirements of DEFRA 155(a) (1) (A) and 170(a) (1) for a qualified appraisal are satisfied. Hewitt v. Commissioner at

15 Docket No The obligation to substantiate charitable contributions is clear and unambiguous. Blair v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo Petitioners rely upon the JHR report to support the claimed deductions. Declaration of Derek W. Kelley, Exhibit C.2 As discussed below, the JHR report is not a "qualified appraisal" as defined by DEFRA 155(a) (4) and Treas. Reg A- 13 (c) (3). DEFRA 155(a) (4) states that a qualified appraisal means an appraisal prepared by a qualified appraiser which includes: (A) A description of the property appraised; (B) the fair market value of such property on the date of contribution and the specific basis for the valuation; (C) a statement that such appraisal was prepared for income tax purposes; (:D) (E) the qualifications of the qualified appraiser; the signature and TIN of such appraiser; and I.R.C. 170(f) (11), as added by section 883 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. No , 118 Stat (2004), strengthened the statutory substantiation requirements in DEFRA. Section 170(f) (11), however, does not apply to petitioners' case since I.R.C. 170(f) (11) is only effective for contributions made after June 3, The conservation contribution in this case was made before the I,R.C. 170(f) (11) effective date. 2 All subsequent references to Exhibits are to those attached to the declaration of attorney Derek W. Kelley, filed in connection with Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

16 Docket No (F) such additional information as the Secretary prescribes in such regulations. Section 1.170A-13(c) (3) (i) states that a "qualified appraisal" means an appraisal document that: (A) Relates to an appraisal that is made not earlier than 60 days prior to the date of contribution of the appraised property nor later than the date specified by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (iv) (B); (lb) Is prepared, signed and dated by a qualified appraiser; (C) Includes the information required by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii); and (:D) Does not involve an appraisal fee prohibited by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (6). Section 1.170A-13(c) (3) (ii) requires a qualified appraisal to include the following information: (A) A sufficiently detailed description of the property so a person who is not generally familiar with the type of property can determine that the property contributed is the same property appraised; (B) In the case of tangible property, the physical condition of the property; (C) The date (or expected date) of contribution to the donee; (D) The terms of any restriction on disposition of the property contributed; (E) The name, address, and identifying number of the qualified appraiser; (F) The qualifications of the appraiser who signs the

17 Docket No appraisal; (G) A statement that the appraisal was prepared for income tax purposes; (H) The date on which the property was appraised; (I) The appraised fair market value (within the meaning of Treas. Reg A-1(c) (2)) of the property on the date (or expected date) of contribution; (J) The method of valuation to determine the fair market value, such as the income approach, the market-data approach, and the replacement-cost-less-depreciation approach; and (K) The specific basis for the valuation, such as specific comparable sales transactions or statistical sampling, including a justification for using sampling and an explanation of the sampling procedure employed. In this case, the appraisal fails to comply with the many statutory and regulatory requirements for a qualified appraisal. Specifically, the requirements of DEFRA 155(a) (4) (B) (requiring the appraisal to include "the specific basis for the valuation"), DEFRA 155(a) (4) (A) (requiring the appraisal to include "a description of the property appraised"), and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (J) & (K) (requires the appraisal to include the method and basis for the valuation), are not met. In addition, the appraisal does not include the date or expected date of contribution to the donee, as required by DEFRA 155(a) (4) (]B) and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (C), or the appraised fair market value of the easement on the date or

18 Docket No expected date of contribution, as required by DEFRA 155(a) (4) (:B) and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (I). Also, the appraisal report was not timely prepared. See Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (i) (A). Because the appraisal that petitioners rely on to substantiate their charitable contribution deduction is not a "qualified appraisal," as expressly described in detail in DEFRA 155(a) (4) and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3), the petitioners' noncash charitable contribution deduction must be disallowed. A. The JHR report fails to include a method of valuation for determining the fair market value of the façade easement as required by Treas. Reg A- 13(c) (3) (ii) (J). In order to be a "qualified appraisal," an appraisal must include the method of valuation used to determine the fair market value such as the income approach, the market-data approach, and the replacement-cost-less-depreciation approach. Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (3) (ii) (J). When appraisal reports do not provide the method or the specific basis for a valuation, a charitable contribution deduction should be disallowed. See D'Arcangelo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo ; see also Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (appeal pending, 2d Cir.); 1982 East, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (April 12,

19 Docket No ); But cf. Commissioner v. Simmons, 2011 U.S, App. LEXIS (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2011), aff's T.C. Memo (stating that the Tax Court "did not clearly err" in concluding the appraisal sufficiently identified the method and basis). This Court's objective in easement contribution cases is to determine whether, and to what degree, the easement changes the use and value of the subject property. Hilborn v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 677, (1985). The "before and after" approach accomplishes this objective by subtracting the value of the property immediately after the imposition of the easement from the value of the property immediately before the imposition of the easement. Id. Congress provided substantial, detailed guidance in the legislative history of I.R.C. 170(h) about the "before and after" approach, much of which was incorporated in Treas. Reg A-14(h) (3). See S. Rept. No , at (1980), C.B. 599, at 606. Congress explicitly stated that the "before and after" test "should not be applied mechanically." S. Rept. No , at (1980), C.B. 599, at 606. Courts have reiterated Congress' intent that the "before and after" valuation of a façade easement is not based on an arbitrary percentage diminution in value. See, e.g., Hilborn v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 677, (1985); Nicoladis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

20 Docket No ; Losch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo ; Richmond v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 578 (E.D. La. 1988). In Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (appeal pending, 2d Cir.), this Court held that an appraisal report did not constitute a qualified appraisal where the appraiser failed to provide a methodology for the valuation of easementencumbered property. In that case, the petitioner's appraiser "applied mechanically a percentage with no demonstrated support... other than acceptance of similar percentages in prior controversies." Scheidelman is directly on point. Instead of using an acceptable method to determine a correct value for petitioners' property, the JHR report utilizes what it calls the "Court Case History Measurement" method, which is no method at all. (Exhibit C, p.53.) According to the JHR report, the "value of the easement can be also based on a percentage of the subject's market value." (Exhibit C, p.36.) The JHR report then states: There have been a series of court cases involving the valuation of such easements and have also obtained direct feedback from the Internal Revenue Service [sic]. As a result, an acceptable range of value loss associated with the easement, expressed as a percentage, has been established through the court system. This effectively becomes the method of measurement since currently there is no empirical market data to abstract the value of the loss in property rights. The

21 Docket No Internal Revenue Service has concluded that the acceptable valuation of a façade easement should range from approximately 10% to 15% of the value of the property. In a more heavily regulated market like Manhattan, the lower end of the range is more appropriate... since the market value impact of this modification of the bundle of rights on value would likely be less than in a minimally regulated market. (Exhibit C, p,36; see also Exhibit C, p.53.) Further, the JHR report's claim that "an acceptable range of value loss associated with the easement, expressed as a percentage, has been established through the court system" is simply erroneous. (Exhibit C, p.53) Although diminution in value can always be expressed as a percentage by comparing the independently-calculated "before" and "after" values of the underlying property, the fair market value of an easement is not arrived at by simply applying a percentage to the value of the property before the imposition of the easement. See, e.g., Nicoladis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo This Court in Nicoladis discussed whether Hilborn established a "10-percent rule" and definitively concluded that " [w]e did not there and do not here." The Court explained that "Hilborn establishes as acceptable the before and after method of valuation, and while under the circumstances of that case a 10-percent figure was relied upon, valuation itself is still a question of facts and

22 Docket No circumstances." The percentage "method" used in the JHR report is merely the mechanical application of a set percentage to the before value of the underlying property. The JHR report erroneously states that the Internal Revenue Service had concluded that the acceptable valuation of a façade easement should range from approximately 10% to 15% of the value of the property. However, the JHR report does not cite any authority for this erroneous statement nor present any information on how such a range, even if acceptable, would constitute a method. Instead, without reasoned analysis, the JHR report simply concludes that the façade easement granted by petitioner Barbara Kafka decreased the value of the property by 11%, or $550,000. (Exhibit C, p.53.) The JHR report does not provide, cite, or otherwise analyze the court cases that purportedly allowed for a 10% to 15% easement value. Further, the JHR report lacks any support for its conclusion regarding the Internal Revenue Service's nonexistent 10% to 15% "safe harbor." The mechanical application of a percentage to the value of the underlying property is not a method of valuation within the meaning of Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (J) and Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (appeal pending, 2d Cir.).

23 Docket No Therefore, the JHR report is not a "qualified appraisal" under section 155(a) (4) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (3). B. The JHR report fails to include a "specific basis" for the valuation as required by Sec. 155(a) (4) (lb) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (K). In order to be a "qualified appraisal," an appraisal must include the "specific basis" for the valuation, such as specific comparable sales transactions. Section 155(a) (4) (B) of DEFRA; Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (3) (ii) (K). The case at hand is similar to Scheidelman. In Scheidelman, the taxpayer's appraiser, Mr. Drazner, stated that he used a sales comparison approach. Mr. Drazner then assigned an 11.33% diminution in value to the fair market value before conveyance of the façade easement, The Court, noting that the Drazner Report provided no meaningful analysis to explain the percentages he used, found that Mr. Drazner failed to explain how the specific attributes of Ms. Scheidelman's property led to the value determined in the Drazner report. The Scheidelman Court rejected Mr. Drazner's report for (1) lack of employing a recognized methodology, and (2) lack of a specific basis for the calculation of the after value. The JHR report, like the Drazner report in Scheidelman, lacks a specific basis for the calculation of the after value. Although the JHR report uses comparable sales as a basis for

24 Docket No determining the before value, it uses no basis at all for determining the after value and no basis for determining the easement value. The JHR report merely contains the following general statement: "In a more heavily regulated market like Manhattan, the lower end of the range [10% to 15%] is more appropriate since the market value impact on this modification of the bundle of rights on value would likely be less than in a minimally regulated market." (Exhibit C, p.53.)3 3 The appraisal does list five "additional restrictions" on the property that apparently result from conservation façade easements in general, but none of these are explained or make sense. The first "restriction" is based on the conclusion that the tax deduction resulting from the easement is nontransferable. (Exhibit C, p.52.) This conclusion employs the following faulty circular reasoning: an easement reduces the value of property because future owners cannot take a deduction for a restriction on the property. The tax implications of the transaction are irrelevant with respect to the value of the easement. The second "restriction" is an unsupported, speculative claim that the easement is in perpetuity, while the local law restrictions governing historic districts are not. (Exhibit C, p.52.) Regardless of the fact that the local laws have been in place for forty years, the JHR report does not analyze the terms of the actual easement petitioners placed on their property or compare those terms to local law. The third "restriction" is that taxpayers with easements on their properties must seek approval for modifications from the Trust for Architectural Easements f/k/a National Architectural Trust (the "Trust"), in addition to the approval they must seek from the Landmarks Preservation Commission (the "LPC"). (Exhibit C, p.52.) There is no support for the claim that seeking approval from both the Trust and the LPC is any more onerous than simply seeking approval from the LPC, or that

25 Docket No The undisputed material facts in this case show that the JHR report fails to include a "specific basis" for the valuation, as required by section 155(a) (4) (B) of DEFRA.. Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (K) provides an explanation of what is meant by "basis" in section 155(a) (4) (B) DEFRA. Therefore, the JHR report is not a "qualified appraisal" under section 155(a) (4) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3). C. The JHR report fails to include the fair market value on the date of contribution as required by Section 155(a) (4) (:B) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A- 13(c) (3) (ii) (C) and (I). DEFRA 155(a) (4) (B) states that an appraisal of property in excess of $5,000 must include the fair market value of the property contributed "on the date of contribution." Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (C) requires appraisals in support of a charitable contribution in excess of $5,000 to include the date or expected date of contribution, and Treas. Reg Aapproval would be denied by the Trust in situations where it would be allowed by the LPC. The fourth and fifth "restrictions" relate to claims that the Trust has additional power to authorize repair or modifications and property maintenance. (Exhibit C, p.52.) These are not restrictions on the grantor, but (in theory) additional rights the grantee might have to help maintain (not diminish) the property's value. Of course the grantee could sue the grantor to recover this cost. But to view this "right" as a "restriction" on the grantor, the appraisal has to implicitly assume that the typical homeowner would buy a property with the intention of letting it fall into disrepair.

26 Docket No (c) (3) (ii) (I) requires such appraisals to include the appraised fair market value (within the meaning of 1.170A- 1(c)) of the property on the date or expected date of the contribution. The JHR report is deficient because it omits the date or expected date of contribution. In Lord v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo , a fully stipulated case, a deduction for a conservation easement contribution was disallowed where the appraisal did not include the following information: The easement contribution date, the date the appraisal was performed, and the appraised fair market value of the easement contribution on the contribution date. The Court stated that the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply where significant information is omitted, and these omissions were significant. See also Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo , aff'd without published opinion, 364 Fed. Appx. 317 (9th Cir. 2009). In the present case, the failure to value the property as of the date of contribution and failure to even state the date or expected date of the contribution further demonstrate that the appraisal obtained by petitioners is not a "qualified appraisal" under section 155(a) (4) and DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3).

27 Docket No D. The JHR report was not timely, as required by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (i) (A). In order to be a "qualified appraisal," the appraisal must be "made not earlier than 60 days prior to the date of contribution of the appraised property." Treas. Reg A- 13(c) (3) (i) (A). The JHR report states that it was prepared on December 16, This date is too early to be timely. As for the date of contribution, although the Conservation Deed is dated December 10, 2003, it was not recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York until approximately three months later, on March 13, Treas. Reg A-1(b) provides that "[o]rdinarily, a contribution is made at the time delivery is effected." The regulation does not provide guidance on when delivery of real property is effected, and this Court has looked to state law for guidance. Greer v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 294 (1978), aff'd on another issue, 634 F.2d 1044 (6th Cir. 1980) (a charitable contribution deduction case involving tangible personal property, looking to Tennessee law); Dyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (a charitable contribution deduction case involving transfer of real property, looking to Maine law; citing Greer); Douglas v. Commissioner, T.C, Memo (same, looking to California

28 Docket No law; citing Greer); Brotzler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (same, looking to Minnesota law; citing Greer). In Alioto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo , aff'd, 692 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1982), the taxpayer, who owned real property in California, executed deeds to transfer the property to charitable organizations but did not physically deliver the deeds until he recorded them, which he did in the year following the year of execution. California law did not treat the mere execution of a deed as effecting delivery. Under California law, there was a presumption of delivery when a deed was recorded. The Court held that for purposes of I.R.C. 170(a), the date of delivery was the recordation date. In New York, the state's environmental conservation statute is the sole authority for creation of a conservation easement in gross (i.e., not appurtenant to an interest in real property) that is enforceable notwithstanding certain defenses available under New York's general laws, at common law or in equity. See N.Y. Env. Law The easement in the present case is an easement in gross, and its purpose is purportedly that of historic preservation and open space, and is subject to the New York statute. N.Y. Env. Law (1). A conservation easement subject to the New York statute can be created or conveyed only by a deed or another conveyance in

29 Docket No writing, subscribed by both the grantor and the grantee. N.Y. Env. Law (1); N.Y. Gen. Obl. Law Such a conservation easement is not effective until it is recorded in accordance with New York real property law. N.Y. Env. Law (4). Here, the Conservation Deed was recorded on March 13, Under New York law, because the easement is in gross, the easement is not enforceable against any person other than the original grantor upon its creation or conveyance until it is recorded. Furthermore, until the recordation, enforcement against the grantor could be challenged under one or more defenses available under New York general laws or in equity, such as laches, estoppel, or waiver. N.Y. Env. Law (5). Therefore, the date of contribution was March 13, 2004, the date that the Conservation Deed was recorded. Given that the date of contribution was March 13, 2004, in order for the JHR report to have been timely prepared under Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (i) (A), it must have been made no earlier than January 13, See 1982 East, LLC v. Commissioner, supra, footnote 14. The JHR report states that it is prepared on December 16, Accordingly, the JHR report was not timely under Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (i) (A), and the appraisal obtained by petitioners is not a "qualified

30 Docket No appraisal" under section 155(a) (4) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3). E. The JHR report did not describe the property appraised as required by DEFRA 155(a) (4) (A) and Treas Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (A). DEFRA 155(a) (4) (A) provides that a qualified appraisal must include a description of the property appraised. Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3) (ii) (A) further provides that a qualified appraisal must include a description of the property in sufficient detail for a person who is not generally familiar with the type of property to ascertain that the property that was appraised is the property that will be contributed. The JHR report does not describe the contributed property, which is the easement. Instead of attaching a filled-in copy of the Conservation Deed signed by petitioners and donee, or describing the deed's restrictions, the JHR report attaches a copy of a blank Conservation Deed of Easement form. This blank form fails to list the address of the subject property, the legal description of the property, the day the easement was granted, the donor, and the address of the donor. Because it fails to describe the easement, the JHR report is not a "qualified appraisal" under section 155(a) (4) and DEFRA or Treas. Reg A-13(c) (3).

31 Docket No III. PETITIONERS FAILED TO ATTACH TO THEIR RETURN A FULLY COMPLETED APPRAISAL SUMMARY AS REQUIRED BY DEFRA 155(a) (1) (B) TREAS. REG A-13(c) (2) ()B) DEFRA 155 (a) (1) (B) and (3) requires an appraisal summary to be attached to returns claiming noncash contribution deduction in excess of $5,000. Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (2) (B) states that for charitable contribution deductions in excess of $5,000, a taxpayer must substantiate a claimed charitable contribution deduction by attaching a "fully completed appraisal summary" to the tax return on which the deduction for the contribution is first claimed. Section 1.170A-13(c) (4) (i) of the Treasury Regulations provides that an appraisal summary is a summary of a qualified appraisal made on the form prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service that is signed and dated by both the donee and the qualified appraiser and includes the information required by Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (4) (ii). See DEFRA 155(a) (3). Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, is the form prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service to serve as the appraisal summary. Section 1.170A-13(c) (4) (ii) of the Treasury Regulations requires that an appraisal summary include the following information:

32 Docket No (A) The name and tax identification number of the donor (social security number if the donor is an individual or employer identification number if the donor is a partnership or corporation); (B) A description of the property in sufficient detail for a person who is not generally familiar with the type of property to ascertain that the property that was appraised is the property that was contributed; (C) For tangible property, a brief description of the overall physical condition of the property at the time of the contribution; (:D) The manner and date of acquisition of the property by the donor; (E) The cost or other basis of the property; (F) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the donee; (G) The date the donee received the property; (H) A statement explaining whether or not the contribution was made by means of a bargain sale and the amount of any consideration received from the donee for the contribution; (I) The name, address, and the identifying number of the qualified appraiser who signed the appraisal summary; (J) The fair market value of the property on the date of contribution; (K) A declaration by the appraiser stating that he holds himself out to the public as an appraiser or that he performs appraisals on a regular basis, that he is qualified to appraise the type of property appraised, that he is not one of the persons described in Treas. Reg A-13(c) (5) (iv), and that he understands that a false or fraudulent overstatement of value could subject him to a civil penalty;

33 Docket No (L) A declaration by the appraiser stating that the fee charged for the appraisal is not of a type prohibited by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (6), and that his or her appraisals are not being disregarded under 31 U.S.C. 330(c) on the date the appraiser signs the appraisal summary; and (M) Such other information required by the form (Form 8283). The Form 8283 attached to petitioners' 2003 income tax return leaves a number of spaces blank and fails to include key information about the donated property. Specifically, the Form 8283 is not an appraisal summary because it does not comply with DEFRA and the regulations governing appraisal summaries for the following reasons: 1. It does not contain a description of the property in sufficient detail for a person who is not generally familiar with the type of property to ascertain that the property that was appraised is the property that was contributed as required by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (4) (ii) (lb). The Form 8283 merely describes the property contributed as "23 East 9240 St." and "Historic Preservation Easement." This is not a detailed description of the property. It does not describe what type of property 23 East 92nd Street is, what portions of the property the easement affected, or what restrictions the easement included.

34 Docket No It does not state the manner and date of acquisition of the property by the donor, as required by DEFRA 155 (a) (1) (C) and Treas. Reg A-13(c) (4) (ii) (D). 3. It does not state the cost basis of the property, as required by DEFRA 155(a) (1) (C) and Treas. Reg A- 13 (c) (4) (ii) (E). 4. It does not contain a statement as to whether the contribution of the façade easement was made by means of a bargain sale, and the amount of any consideration received from the donee, as required by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (4) (ii) (H). 5. It does not provide the fair market value of the easement on the date of contribution, as required by Treas. Reg A-13(c) (4) (ii) (J). In sum, petitioners' deduction for a purported charitable contribution of the easement should be disallowed because petitioners failed to attach a fully completed appraisal summary to their return. See Scheidelman, supra (stating that the failure to include the date and manner of acquisition or cost or other basis (see 2. and 3. above) are "defects" that "alone demonstrate that there has not been strict compliance with the regulation requirements"). See also 1982 East, LLC, supra; Friedman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo ; Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258 (1997), aff'd without published

35 Docket No opinion, 166 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo IV. THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE DOES NOT EXCUSE PETITIONERS' NONCOMPLIANCE Petitioners may argue that even if the JHR report and appraisal summary did not meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements, they have substantially complied. However, substantial compliance cannot excuse petitioners' noncompliance with the statute and the regulations. Section 155(a) of DEFRA sets forth clear mandates that a taxpayer claiming a deduction for a charitable contribution must substantiate a noncash contribution in the manner set forth in the statutes and regulations as prescribed by the Secretary. I.R.C. 170(a) (1) provides that a charitable contribution shall be allowable as a deduction only if verified under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. As described in II and III above, petitioners failed to comply with a number of specific requirements set forth in DEFRA 155. Moreover, the Secretary has prescribed detailed regulations for taxpayers claiming deductions in excess of

36 Docket No $5,000 for certain charitable contributions of property. See generally Treas. Reg A-13(c). This regulation, including Treas. Reg A-13(c) (2) (i), was promulgated pursuant to the Congressional mandate in section 155 of DEFRA. The regulations require that the taxpayer, among other things, obtain a qualified appraisal and attach a fully-completed appraisal summary to the tax return. The regulations also provide detailed definitions for the terms "qualified appraisal" and "appraisal summary." When a court reviews an agency regulation interpreting the construction of a statute, the first question is "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, (1984); Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011) (using the Chevron standard for FICA tax). Here, section 155(a) of DEFRA sets forth substantiation requirements and sets forth instructions to the Secretary to issue regulations. DEFRA specifically instructed the Secretary to issue regulations on the qualified appraisal, and appraisal

37 Docket No summary requirements. Therefore, DEFRA and the mandated regulations thereunder must receive deference under the Chevron standard. Consequently, the doctrine of substantial compliance is not applicable to the "qualified appraisal" and "appraisal summary" requirements in this case. They must be strictly construed. Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (appeal pending, 2d Cir.)." When an appraisal summary or qualified appraisal of a conservation easement has not met the requirements of DEFRA and the Treasury Regulations, this Court has properly refused to apply the doctrine of substantial compliance to excuse a taxpayer's failure to meet the qualified appraisal requirement. See, e g, Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo (appeal pending, 2d Cir.) (the lack of a recognized methodology or specific basis in the qualified appraisal is too significant to ignore under the guise of substantial compliance; taxpayer's failure to include the date and manner of acquisition or cost or other basis show there was no strict compliance); Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. at ; D'Arcangelo v. Commissioner, s See also 1982 East, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo , at footnote 14, where this Court states that the appraisals failed to be qualified appraisals for the reasons set forth in Scheidelman. The appraisals in 1982 East, LLC were prepared by Jerome Haims Realty, Inc., the same appraisal firm that prepared petitioners' appraisal report.

38 Docket No T.C. Memo Thus, the doctrine of substantial compliance does not excuse petitioners' noncompliance with the qualified appraisal and appraisal summary requirements of section 155(a) (3) and (4) of DEFRA and Treas. Reg A-13 (c) (3) and (4). V. THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WAS NOT TRANSFERRED IN 2003 I.R.C. 170(a) allows as a deduction any charitable contribution made within the taxable year (emphasis added). See al_so Treas. Reg A-l(b). Here, petitioners claimed a charitable contribution deduction for the easement in 2003 and a carryover noncash charitable deduction for the easement in As set forth in Section II(D) above, however, under New York law the Conservation Deed did not become effective until it was recorded on March 13, Therefore, for purposes of I.R.C. 170, the easement was not transferred in 2003, and petitioners are not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for the easement in See, e.g., Guest v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 9, 18 (1981) (no contribution in the year of the purported charitable contribution when the deed was not acknowledged until the following year). 6 Because the transfer did not occur in 2003, it was also not granted, protected, or enforceable in perpetuity in See I.R.C. 170 (h) (2) (C) and (5), and Treas. Reg A-14 (g), requiring a deductible easement to be granted, protected, and enforceable in perpetuity.

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. HENRY R. LORD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. HENRY R. LORD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent T.C. Memo. 2010-196 UNITED STATES TAX COURT HENRY R. LORD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 13618-06, 20720-06. Filed September 8, 2010. Gerald H. Lean, for petitioner.

More information

U.S. Tax Court, Dkt. No , TC Memo , June 11, 2012.

U.S. Tax Court, Dkt. No , TC Memo , June 11, 2012. Tax Court Memoranda (Current), Steven Rothman and Rory Rothman v. Commissioner., U.S. Tax Court, CCH Dec. 59,085(M), T.C. Memo. 2012-163, 103 T.C.M. 1864, (Jun. 11, 2012) Steven Rothman and Rory Rothman

More information

Rome I, Ltd. v. Commissioner 96 T.C. 697 (T.C. 1991)

Rome I, Ltd. v. Commissioner 96 T.C. 697 (T.C. 1991) CLICK HERE to return to the home page Rome I, Ltd. v. Commissioner 96 T.C. 697 (T.C. 1991) COLVIN, Judge: This is a proceeding pursuant to section 6226 for a readjustment of partnership items of Rome I,

More information

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. J. MAURICE HERMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. J. MAURICE HERMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent T.C. Memo. 2009-205 UNITED STATES TAX COURT J. MAURICE HERMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14005-07. Filed September 14, 2009. P owned approximately 22,000 square

More information

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

More information

Conservation Easement Appraisals. Applicability. Part I: Appraisal Concepts and Methods of Valuation

Conservation Easement Appraisals. Applicability. Part I: Appraisal Concepts and Methods of Valuation Conservation Easement Appraisals 2011 Wyoming Conservation Easement Conference June 2, 2011 Laramie, Wyoming Hunsperger & Weston, Ltd. Mark Weston 5889 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard Suite 404 Greenwood Village,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAKE FOREST PARTNERS 2, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION June 6, 2006 9:05 a.m. v No. 257417 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 00-292089 Respondent-Appellee.

More information

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW... 1 II. BASICS OF LIKE KIND EXCHANGES... 1 A. General Rules... 1 B. Exchanges... 21 C. Designations of Replacement Property -- Generally... 24 III. EXCHANGES WITH BOOT...

More information

STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioners, RULING AND ORDER JENNIFER E. NASHOLD, CHAIRPERSON:

STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioners, RULING AND ORDER JENNIFER E. NASHOLD, CHAIRPERSON: STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION ROBERT J. LAWRENCE AND CHARLES M. KEMPLER (DEC'D), DOCKET NO. 05-T-83 Petitioners, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. JENNIFER E.

More information

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. B.V. BELK, JR., AND HARRIET C. BELK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. B.V. BELK, JR., AND HARRIET C. BELK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent T.C. Memo. 2013-154 UNITED STATES TAX COURT B.V. BELK, JR., AND HARRIET C. BELK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 5437-10. Filed June 19, 2013. petitioners. David

More information

Fact Sheet for Canadian Appraisers of Conservation Gifts with Cross-Border Tax Consequences

Fact Sheet for Canadian Appraisers of Conservation Gifts with Cross-Border Tax Consequences Fact Sheet for Canadian Appraisers of Conservation Gifts with Cross-Border Tax Consequences Introduction American Friends of Canadian Land Trusts (American Friends) is a U.S. 501(c)(3) publicly supported

More information

United States Tax Court

United States Tax Court United States Tax Court FRANK NICOLADIS AND PAGONA NICOLADIS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 42696-85 Date of Decision: April 20, 1988 Judge: Whitaker, opinion Tax

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD KEITH MARTIN, ROBERT DOUGLAS MARTIN, MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA BEACH, MARTIN ASPHALT COMPANY AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY, Petitioners, CASE NO: 92,046 vs. DEPARTMENT

More information

S18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE.

S18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 18, 2018 S18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE. BENHAM, Justice. This case presents the issue of whether the contract

More information

THE LIKE KIND EXCHANGE: A CURRENT REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW... 1

THE LIKE KIND EXCHANGE: A CURRENT REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW... 1 THE LIKE KIND EXCHANGE: A CURRENT REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. OVERVIEW... 1 II. BASICS OF LIKE KIND EXCHANGES... 1 A. General Rules... 1 B. Exchanges... 17 C. Designations of Replacement Property

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Leonard Blair and Sharon Blair : : v. : No. 1310 C.D. 2010 : Argued: February 7, 2011 Berks County Board of Assessment : Appeals, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

General Counsel s Analysis of Depreciation Deduction for a Cooperative or Condominium Association and Clarification of Revenue Ruling

General Counsel s Analysis of Depreciation Deduction for a Cooperative or Condominium Association and Clarification of Revenue Ruling 1 of 7 10/25/2009 12:23 PM Checkpoint Contents Federal Library Federal Editorial Materials PPC's Tax and Financial Planning Library Homeowners' Association Tax Library Chapter 8 General Counsel Memoranda

More information

TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Present: All the Justices TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 971635 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF

More information

OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH November 22, 2017 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION

OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH November 22, 2017 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES K. WOOLFORD, TRUSTEE OF THE WOOLFORD TRUST U/A DTD 13 APRIL 2008, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 161095 JUSTICE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH November 22, 2017 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT

More information

Prop. Reg. Section 1.170A-17(b)(2)(iii) Qualified appraisal and qualified appraiser

Prop. Reg. Section 1.170A-17(b)(2)(iii) Qualified appraisal and qualified appraiser Prop. Reg. Section 1.170A-17(b)(2)(iii) Qualified appraisal and qualified appraiser CLICK HERE to return to the home page Effective: These proposed regulations are proposed to apply to contributions occurring

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL WESNER, d/b/a FISH TALES, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-4646

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RYAN M. HUIZENGA, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 1, 2016 v No. 327682 Michigan Tax Tribunal CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, LC No. 14-006527-TT Respondent-Appellee.

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC06-2461 DOUGLAS K. RABORN, et al., Appellants, vs. DEBORAH C. MENOTTE, etc., Appellee. [January 10, 2008] BELL, J. We have for review two questions of Florida law certified

More information

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WASHINGTON OCT 3 0 2006 The Honorable Jon Kyl United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Kyl: Thank you for your recent letter forwarding an inquiry from your constituent,

More information

The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute

The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute 16 th Annual Conference Recent Developments in Land Conservation March 9, 2007 Presented by: Lawrence R. Kueter, Esq. Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C. 633 17 th Street, Suite

More information

Borowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st...

Borowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st... Page 1 of 5 JOHN BOROWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal No. 2013AP537. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I. Filed: December 27, 2013. Before

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006 PRESENT: All the Justices RALPH WHITE, ET AL. v. Record No. 050417 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG

More information

Liabilities Assumed in Certain Transactions Announcement

Liabilities Assumed in Certain Transactions Announcement Liabilities Assumed in Certain Transactions Announcement 2003 37 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The IRS and Treasury are considering

More information

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC Regulation No May 2015

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC Regulation No May 2015 CEMP-CR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 ER 405-1-19 Regulation No. 405-1-19 29 May 2015 Real Estate ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS 1. Purpose. Engineer

More information

BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL.

BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. PRESENT: All the Justices BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No. 130682 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Lisa B. Kemler,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 RON SCHULTZ, as Property Appraiser of Citrus County, et al., Appellants, v. CASE NO. 5D02-2406 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT

More information

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago County: DANIEL J. BISSETT, Judge. Affirmed. Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago County: DANIEL J. BISSETT, Judge. Affirmed. Before Neubauer, P.J., Reilly and Gundrum, JJ. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 17, 2014 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

New York Agricultural Land Trust

New York Agricultural Land Trust New York Agricultural Land Trust P.O. Box 121 Preble, NY 13141 www.nyalt.org New York Agricultural Land Trust Agricultural Conservation Easements and Appraisals Introduction An agricultural conservation

More information

Civil Case No. 08-cv LTB-KLM (Consolidated w/08-cv ltb-klm; 08-cv LTB-KLM; and 08-cv LTB-KLM)

Civil Case No. 08-cv LTB-KLM (Consolidated w/08-cv ltb-klm; 08-cv LTB-KLM; and 08-cv LTB-KLM) Civil Case No. 08-cv-00055-LTB-KLM (Consolidated w/08-cv-00056-ltb-klm; 08-cv-00473-LTB-KLM; and 08-cv-00474-LTB-KLM) RCL PROPERTIES, INC., KOZAD PROPERTIES, LTD., GLENHILLS RANCH, LTD., AMY HILL KOZELSKY,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C Appellant/Defendant. Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C Appellant/Defendant. Case No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C-0728 RITA GILLESPIE, Appellee/Plaintiff. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Appellant/Defendant. Case

More information

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SILVER BEACH TOWERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., SILVER BEACH TOWERS EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and SILVER BEACH TOWERS WEST

More information

Top 6 IRS Attacks On Conservation Easement Deductions

Top 6 IRS Attacks On Conservation Easement Deductions Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Top 6 IRS Attacks On Conservation Easement

More information

New Tax Law Could Enhance the Attractiveness of Conservation

New Tax Law Could Enhance the Attractiveness of Conservation New Tax Law Could Enhance the Attractiveness of Conservation Easements Farm Business Management Update, February 1998 By Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. of the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics,

More information

No July 27, P.2d 939

No July 27, P.2d 939 Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 111 Nev. 998, 998 (1995) Schwartz v. State, Dep't of Transp. MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ, Trustees of the MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ Revocable

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DANIEL C. MOSHIER, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 20, 2007 9:00 a.m. v No. 272617 Michigan Tax Tribunal WHITEWATER TOWNSHIP, LC No. 00-319920 Respondent-Appellee.

More information

An Overview of the Proposed Bonus Depreciation Regulations under Section 168(k)

An Overview of the Proposed Bonus Depreciation Regulations under Section 168(k) An Overview of the Proposed Bonus Depreciation Regulations under Section 168(k) August 21, 2018 Federal Bar Association 2018 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This communication is for general informational

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS. J. BRUCE WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005 v No. 262203 Kalamazoo Probate Court Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION 1. Before the Court is the Objection of the FLYi and

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION 1. Before the Court is the Objection of the FLYi and IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: FLYi, INC., et al. Debtors. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Chapter 11 Case Nos. 05-20011 (MFW) (Jointly Administered) Re: Docket Nos. 2130, 2176,

More information

Preservation Easements, Preservation Laws, Property Rights & the Appraisal Process: Lessons from New Orleans, Nashville (and New York City)

Preservation Easements, Preservation Laws, Property Rights & the Appraisal Process: Lessons from New Orleans, Nashville (and New York City) Preservation Easements, Preservation Laws, Property Rights & the Appraisal Process: Lessons from New Orleans, Nashville (and New York City) Richard J. Roddewig, JD, MAI Jones Lang LaSalle Leah Tubbs Preservation

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Allegheny West Civic : Council, Inc. and John DeSantis, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1335 C.D. 2013 : Argued: April 22, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment of : City

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 265717 Jackson Circuit Court TRACY L. PICKRELL, LC No.

More information

Sec. 48 Investment Credit: Eligible property and special rules; Rehabilitation expenditures; Rehabilitation credit passthroughs

Sec. 48 Investment Credit: Eligible property and special rules; Rehabilitation expenditures; Rehabilitation credit passthroughs Private Letter Ruling 8943074 Sec. 48 Investment Credit: Eligible property and special rules; Rehabilitation expenditures; Rehabilitation credit passthroughs This is in response to a letter dated January

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS COVENTRY PARKHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 25, 2012 9:05 a.m. v No. 304188 Oakland Circuit Court FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

More information

Belk v. Commissioner: Land Substitutions in Conservation Easements

Belk v. Commissioner: Land Substitutions in Conservation Easements Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-2015 Belk v. Commissioner: Land Substitutions

More information

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-097 Filing Date: July 22, 2014 Docket No. 32,310 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL

More information

121 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

121 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 121 T.C. No. 13 UNITED STATES TAX COURT FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 3941-99, 15626-99. Filed September 29, 2003. P was

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.

More information

FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant,

FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant, FLORIDA HI-LIFT v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [571 So.2d 1364, 15 FLW D2967, 1990 Fla.1DCA 4762] FLORIDA HI-LIFT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. No. 89-1947. District Court of Appeal of Florida,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKSTEN, individually, vs.

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 17, 2004 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 17, 2004 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Present: All the Justices SHOOSMITH BROS., INC. v. Record No. 032572 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY September 17, 2004 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Michael

More information

Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith

Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith Senate Bill No. 301 Senator Smith CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to taxation; requiring a county treasurer to assign a tax lien against a parcel of real property located within the county if an assignment

More information

WALTER A. HEUSCHKEL and BONNIE L. HEUSCHKEL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees,

WALTER A. HEUSCHKEL and BONNIE L. HEUSCHKEL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees, NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

EXCHANGE AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, Exchanger entered into an dated (the "Purchase Agreement") for the sale of the Relinquished Property to ; and

EXCHANGE AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, Exchanger entered into an dated (the Purchase Agreement) for the sale of the Relinquished Property to ; and EXCHANGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between, hereinafter referred to as "Exchanger", and SURETY 1031 EXCHANGE, INC., hereinafter referred to as "Intermediary". WHEREAS, Exchanger owns

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Amos S. Lapp and Emma S. Lapp, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1845 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: June 5, 2017 Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve : Board : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

Northeast Phoenix Holdings v. Winkleman, 193 P.3d 776, 219 Ariz. 82 (Ariz. App., 2008)

Northeast Phoenix Holdings v. Winkleman, 193 P.3d 776, 219 Ariz. 82 (Ariz. App., 2008) 193 P.3d 776 219 Ariz. 82 NORTHEAST PHOENIX HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner, v. Mark WINKLEMAN, in his official capacity as State Land Commissioner, Respondent, and Jaren Associates # 4, Intervenor. No. 1 CA-SA

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CVS EGL FRUITVILLE SARASOTA FL, ) LLC and HOLIDAY CVS, LLC, )

More information

FYI For Your Information

FYI For Your Information TAXPAYER SERVICE DIVISION FYI For Your Information Gross Conservation Easement Credit OVERVIEW An income tax credit is available for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2000, for the donation of

More information

Whether a rent-to-own (RTO) contract for a consumer good is a true lease or a conditional sales contract for Federal income tax purposes.

Whether a rent-to-own (RTO) contract for a consumer good is a true lease or a conditional sales contract for Federal income tax purposes. CLICK HERE to return to the home page PLR 9338002 Issue Whether a rent-to-own (RTO) contract for a consumer good is a true lease or a conditional sales contract for Federal income tax purposes. Facts Taxpayer

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN SCHOENHERR, SHELLEY SCHOENHERR, TIMOTHY SPINA, and ELIZABETH SPINA, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 235601 Wayne Circuit Court VERNIER

More information

OPINION. No CV. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee

OPINION. No CV. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee OPINION No. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants v. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-16979 Honorable David A.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS

More information

Undivided Fractional Interest In Rental Real Property

Undivided Fractional Interest In Rental Real Property April 28, 2002 About Exchanges Services Knowledge Base Contact Us About the Firm Featured Properties Undivided Fractional Interest In Rental Real Property Part III Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach County, Florida, Petitioner, v. SARAH B. NEFF, a/k/a SUSAN B. NEFF, a/k/a SALLY B.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT BARBARA L. BARNEY, ERNEST W. BARNEY, ET AL., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

Liquidated Damages under The Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Background

Liquidated Damages under The Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Background Liquidated Damages under The Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Background It is well settled law in Florida that the parties to a contract may stipulate in advance to an amount to be paid or

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC08-2389 Petitioner, Lower Tribunals: Third District Court of Appeal v. Case No.: 3D08-564 WILLIAM

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NATHAN KLOOSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 15, 2009 9:10 a.m. v No. 286013 Tax Tribunal CITY OF CHARLEVOIX, LC No. 00-323883 Respondent-Appellee.

More information

Title: Ronald J. Schultz, Citrus County Property Appraiser. Jun 03, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Title: Ronald J. Schultz, Citrus County Property Appraiser. Jun 03, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Title: Ronald J. Schultz, Citrus County Property Appraiser Jun 03, 1994 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ) IN RE: RONALD J. SCHULTZ, ) CITRUS COUNTY ) CASE NO.DOR 94-2-DS PROPERTY APPRAISER ) ) ORDER

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOHN ROLLAS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-1526

More information

IMPORTANT UPDATED ADVISORY ON TAX SHELTER ABUSE INVOLVING CONSERVATION DONATIONS

IMPORTANT UPDATED ADVISORY ON TAX SHELTER ABUSE INVOLVING CONSERVATION DONATIONS IMPORTANT UPDATED ADVISORY ON TAX SHELTER ABUSE INVOLVING CONSERVATION DONATIONS All Land Trust Alliance (the Alliance ) member land trusts adopt and commit to implement Land Trust Standards and Practices

More information

With increased media focus on

With increased media focus on Conservation easements, the IRS & charity By Robert W. Wood With increased media focus on global climate change, people are paying attention to the environment, and especially to its conservation and preservation.

More information

UNDERSTANDING PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS A GUIDE TO REGULAR ASSESSMENT APPEALS UNDER TRUE MARKET VALUE AND COMMON LEVEL RANGE STANDARDS

UNDERSTANDING PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS A GUIDE TO REGULAR ASSESSMENT APPEALS UNDER TRUE MARKET VALUE AND COMMON LEVEL RANGE STANDARDS UNDERSTANDING PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS A GUIDE TO REGULAR ASSESSMENT APPEALS UNDER TRUE MARKET VALUE AND COMMON LEVEL RANGE STANDARDS This information was developed to assist property owners in preparing

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, ) ) Case No. SC v. ) ) Lower Tribunal No. 3D STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF REVENUE, )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, ) ) Case No. SC v. ) ) Lower Tribunal No. 3D STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF REVENUE, ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CRESCENT MIAMI CENTER, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Case No. SC03-2063 v. ) ) Lower Tribunal No. 3D02-3002 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF REVENUE, ) ) Respondent. ) ) CONSENTED

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice STUARTS DRAFT SHOPPING CENTER, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No. 951364 SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach County, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN L. HANEY, EMELINE W. HANEY and ANNE M. GANNON, as

More information

LOUISIANA HOUSING CORPORATION QUALIFIED CONTRACT PROCESSING GUIDELINES

LOUISIANA HOUSING CORPORATION QUALIFIED CONTRACT PROCESSING GUIDELINES LOUISIANA HOUSING CORPORATION QUALIFIED CONTRACT PROCESSING GUIDELINES The Louisiana Housing Corporation (the LHC ) is successor in interest to the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency (the LHFA ) and is now

More information

JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS

JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 140929 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI VERIZON

More information

NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET IN RE PETITION FOR SUBSTANTIVE) CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON ) TOWNSHIP (MERCER COUNTY) )

NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET IN RE PETITION FOR SUBSTANTIVE) CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON ) TOWNSHIP (MERCER COUNTY) ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET IN RE PETITION FOR SUBSTANTIVE) CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON ) TOWNSHIP (MERCER COUNTY) ) Civil Action OPINION This matter comes before the Council on Affordable

More information

F L, E D MAR ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. No

F L, E D MAR ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. No IN THE THE STATE SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 9641 CHRISTINE VIEW, Appellant, vs. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ORDER AFFIRMANCE No. 69419 F L, E D MAR 2 1 2018 ELD:KESE11-2 A. BROWN CLERK

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JACKSON LAND HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 13, 2016 v No. 328418 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT, DETROIT PUBLIC LC No. 13-009859-CK

More information

The parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

The parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Exhibit 2.4(c) Escrow Agreement ESCROW AGREEMENT This Escrow Agreement, dated as of, 199_ (the "Closing Date"), among, a corporation ("Buyer"),, an individual resident in, ("A"), and, an individual resident

More information

Problems of Leasehold Improvements

Problems of Leasehold Improvements Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 11 Issue 2 1960 Problems of Leasehold Improvements Howard M. Kohn Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law

More information

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF BERMUDA RUN PROPERTY OWNERS from the Decision of the Davie County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation of Certain Real Property For Tax Year 1999 No. COA00-833

More information

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL 1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,

More information

Jurist Co., Inc. v 175 Varick St. LLC 2006 NY Slip Op 30756(U) September 8, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /05 Judge:

Jurist Co., Inc. v 175 Varick St. LLC 2006 NY Slip Op 30756(U) September 8, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /05 Judge: Jurist Co., Inc. v 175 Varick St. LLC 2006 NY Slip Op 30756(U) September 8, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 104701/05 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

Deeds: Topics to be Covered. Deeds MAY (but Need Not) Include: Valid Deed MUST Include:

Deeds: Topics to be Covered. Deeds MAY (but Need Not) Include: Valid Deed MUST Include: Deeds: Topics to be Covered What a deed is (and is not) Types of deeds Contents of deeds Mandatory contents Optional contents Special/idiosyncratic requirements Impact of errors in the preparation/execution

More information

(a) In general Gross income of a lessee does not include any amount received in cash (or treated as a rent reduction) by a lessee from a lessor -

(a) In general Gross income of a lessee does not include any amount received in cash (or treated as a rent reduction) by a lessee from a lessor - Internal Revenue Code Sec. 110. Qualified lessee construction allowances for short-term leases TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter B, PART III, Sec. 110. STATUTE (a) In general Gross income of

More information

MODEL CONSERVATION RESTRICTION AMENDMENT POLICY GUIDELINES Massachusetts Easement Defense Subcommittee March 6, 2007 PREAMBLE

MODEL CONSERVATION RESTRICTION AMENDMENT POLICY GUIDELINES Massachusetts Easement Defense Subcommittee March 6, 2007 PREAMBLE MODEL CONSERVATION RESTRICTION AMENDMENT POLICY GUIDELINES Massachusetts Easement Defense Subcommittee March 6, 2007 PREAMBLE Because conservation restrictions are an important tool for permanently protecting

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session JUDITH ANN FORD v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 01-0846 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor

More information

Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014]

Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014] Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier (2013-274) 2014 VT 80 [Filed 18-Jul-2014] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in

More information

(Proceeding No. 1.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

(Proceeding No. 1.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Decided and Entered: April 25, 2002 90621 In the Matter of ULSTER BUSINESS COMPLEX LLC, Appellant, V TOWN OF ULSTER et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In the Matter of AG PROPERTIES

More information

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018 Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any

More information

August 12, Thank you for your correspondence of May 29, BACKGROUND

August 12, Thank you for your correspondence of May 29, BACKGROUND Counties: Planning and Zoning: Subdivision Regulations: Fees: County may not prevent recording of all land conveyance documents that do not comply with county land use controls and fee requirements. Minn.

More information