The U.S. Tax Court today issued a “reviewed opinion” holding that a facade easement failed to qualify as a charitable conservation contribution under section 170(h) because the easement deed failed to satisfy the “in perpetuity” requirements of the statute.
The case is: Palmolive Building Investors, LLC v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. No. 18 (October 10, 2017). Read the Tax Court’s opinion [PDF 187 KB] as agreed to by the majority. There were no separate concurring or dissenting opinions.
As briefly explained in a summary prepared by the Tax Court, a partnership in 2004 transferred a facade easement on a building in Chicago, by executing an easement deed in favor of a qualified organization. The easement deed placed restrictions on the partnership and its successors with respect to the facade easement and the building.
The partnership’s building was subject to two mortgages. Before executing the easement deed, the partnership obtained “ostensible” mortgage subordination agreements from its mortgagee banks. The easement deed provided that in the event the facade easement was extinguished through a judicial proceeding, the mortgagee banks would have claims prior to that of the donee organization to any proceeds received from the condemnation proceedings, until the mortgage was satisfied.
The partnership claimed a charitable contribution deduction for 2004 for the facade easement contribution.
In a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment, the IRS disallowed the partnership’s claimed charitable contribution deduction for the donation of the facade easement and also determined that the partnership was liable for a gross valuation misstatement penalty or, alternatively, for a substantial understatement of income tax, negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, or a substantial valuation misstatement penalty.
The partnership’s tax matters partner filed a petition challenging these determinations, and the IRS filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
The IRS asserted that the easement deed did not satisfy the perpetuity requirements of section 170 and the regulations because it provided the mortgagees with prior claims to extinguishment proceeds in preference to the donee organization.
The partnership countered that if the easement deed did violate the perpetuity requirement, the easement deed included a “saving clause” that retroactively reformed the deed to comply with the perpetuity requirements of Reg. section 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii).
The Tax Court granted summary judgment for the IRS, noting that this case would be appealable to the Seventh Circuit and thus finding that:
© 2018 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.