Graev v. Commissioner III

The Tax Court held for the IRS, finding that the cash and easement gifts were rendered conditional by the side letter, and that the possibility that the IRS would disallow the deductions was not 'so remote as to be negligible.' Tax Court upheld a 20% overvaluation penalty .

The Tax Court disallowed the deduction in its entirety because it held that the easement had zero value. The Tax Court found the taxpayers' expert witness appraisers unconvincing, based on numerous methodological flaws.

The Tax Court disallowed the deduction because of the failure to timely record the easement.

IRS disallowed a CE deduction in full due to missing basis on Form 8283.Tax Court found for the IRS that taxpayer had not substantially complied and that the information is reasonably obtainable and necessary. The tax court follows that of RERI Holdings I, LLC v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. No. 1.

The 11th Circuit vacated part of the Tax Court decision that disallowed the charitable deduction based on the improvements clause in the termination proceeds provision but affirmed the Tax Court’s decision on the valuation penalty.

The Tax Court ruled that the taxpayer's appraisal and related testimony were so deficient that they were not admissible as evidence. The taxpayer having proffered no substantial evidence, the Court ruled for the IRS.

Tax Court followed Simmons and Averyt but broke with Schrimsher, that the conservation easement met the requirements of a contemporaneous written acknowledgment. Without expressly stating so, the easement as a whole made clear that no goods or services were received in exchange for the easement.

Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS, finding that even if the deed restrictions were included at the request of OCLT, they were required to be considered in determining the fair market value of the gift.

In a proceeds clause case with the improvement deduction language, the Tax Court denied the deductions in full, following Oakbrook Land Holdings LLC, v. Commissioner and Coal Property Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner. The Tax Court declined to consider the IRS' argument on the floating building areas.

Following Belk v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that the conservation easement did not qualify for a charitable deduction because there was no 'qualified property interest' as required by section 170(h)(2)(C).