Rothman v. Commissioner of IRS

The Tax Court held that the appraisal was not a 'qualified appraisal,' there was no reasonable cause exception, no substantial compliance, the endowment is not a deductible gift and no penalties due to reasonable reliance.

Brief filed by IRS. The Tax Court held that the appraisal was not a 'qualified appraisal,' there was no reasonable cause exception, no substantial compliance, the endowment is not a deductible gift and no penalties due to reasonable reliance.

Brief filed in the 2nd Circuit for Petitioner Scheidelman. The Tax Court held that the appraisal was not a 'qualified appraisal,' there was no reasonable cause exception, no substantial compliance, the endowment is not a deductible gift and no penalties due to reasonable reliance.

This factsheet describes the components of and other considerations for a qualified appraisal.

The Tax Court held that the appraisal was not a qualified appraisal due to omission of several dates and FMV. The Court found these omissions significant enough so as to preclude the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance.

The landowner donated historic preservation facade easements claiming a large deduction which the IRS challenged on valuation. Following Kaufman and Scheidelman, the Tax Court ruled that a generalized diminution in value approach was not an appropriate method of valuing a facade easement.

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).

The Tax Court held that the easement did not meet the open space conservation purpose test because it did not preserve any land in its natural state and failed the historic preservation test because it did not protect the property's contribution to the historical nature of the neighborhood.

This is a checklist for reviewing an IRS qualified appraisal and Form 8283 from the accredited the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

The Tax Court held that the appraisal was unsupported by any quantitative analysis of the factors leading to the reduction in value, and therefore the taxpayer did not meet his burden of showing the easement's value.