Wachter v. Commissioner

The Tax Court opinion was very thorough, included a review of the legislative history of 170(h), and held for the donors on every count, that the easements met the 170(h)(4) conservation purposes tests and the 170(h)(5) requirement to hold the easement 'exclusively for conservation purposes.'

The Tax Court held that the conservation easement was not a 'qualified real property interest' because the substitution provision allowed the grantor to change the protected property and thus the easement was not 'granted in perpetuity' under I.R.C. 170(h)(2)(C).

The Tax Court denied the IRS’s summary judgment on whether the taxpayer retained the right to mine subsurface clay considering a prior release and the express prohibition on mining in the easement.

IRS concluded in a private letter ruling that the contribution of the easement is qualified under §§ 170(f)(3)(B)(iii) and 170(h) contingent on Taxpayer making the changes to the deed of easement necessary to comply with the transfer requirements of § 1.170A-14(c)(2) of the Regulations.

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.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court in holding that the posting requirement was a covenant, and not a condition subsequent, of the easement, and therefore the failure to comply with this requirement was not grounds for rescission.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the LLC and denied summary judgment to the Town and County. Following well-developed New York common law, the court ruled that the deed restriction did not include any language evidencing the requisite intent to run with the land.

Bennett_v._Commissioner_of_Food___Agri The court upheld the easement giving Holder the right to approve the location of a home site. The court noted the ambiguity of the statute but upheld enforcement based on the clear terms and on common law principles, expressly declining to apply traditional rules requiring privity of contract or estate.

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.