UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Agency decision
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
T.C. Memo. 2011-238
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
BARRY S. FRIEDBERG AND CHARLOTTE MOSS, P titioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No.
9530-09.
Filed October 3,
2011.
David J. Fischer and Kathleen Pakenham, for petitioners.
Marc Lee Caine, Rachel L. Schiffman, and Alex Shlivko, for
re spondent .
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WELLS, Judge:
The instant case is before
he Court on the
parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 121.1
Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,321,250 and
1Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
(continued. . . )
- 2 a penalty pursuant to section 6662(h) of $528,500 with respect to
petitioners' 2003 tax year.
The issues we must decide are:
(1)
Whether the appraisal report regarding the donation of a
conservation easement on historic residential property was a
"qualified appraisal" within the meaning of section 1.170A13(c) (3), Income Tax Regs.;
(2) whether petitioners attached a
fully completed appraisal summary of the appraisal report to
their return, as required by section 1.170A-13(c) (2) (i) (B),
Income Tax Regs.;
(3) whether the purported transfer of unused
development rights on the property was a valid transfer
permitting petitioners to deduct the donation of the development
rights pursuant to section 170(a) or whether the conservation
easement otherwise restricted the use of the development rights;
and (4) whether the donation of the conservation easement was
granted in perpetuity, as required for a qualified conservation
contribution pursuant to section 170(h).
Background
The facts set forth below are based upon examination of the
pleadings, moving papers, responses, and attachments.
Petitioners are husband and wife (hereinafter referred to
individually as Mr. Friedberg and Ms. Moss) who resided in New
York at the time they filed their petition.
1(...continued)
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Subject Property
During 2002, Mr. Friedberg purchased a six-story residential
townhouse in New York City on East 71st Stree
between Park
Avenue and Lexington Avenue (the subject prop rty) for
$9, 400, 000 .
The subject property has never b en subject to a
mort gage during the t ime Mr . Friedberg has ow ed i t .
Af ter Mr .
Friedberg purchased the subject property, pet tioners paid
approximately $4 million to extensively renovate it.
Ms. Moss is
an interior designer, and after the renovation, House and Garden
magazine published an article featuring her work on the subject
property.
The subject property is in Manhattan's Upper East Side
Historic District.
Anne style.
It was constructed during 1884 in the Queen
On October 15, 2003, the National Park Service
determined that the subject property "contributes to the
significance of the * * * [Upper East Side Historic District] and
is a 'certified historic structure' for a charitable contribution
for conservation purposes in accordance with t e Tax Treatment
Extension Act of 1980."
The subject property is not on a corner
lot and is adjacent to two other properties on the same block of
East 71st Street.
Because of the length of the lot, it also
abuts two properties on Lexington Avenue to the east and one
property on East 70th Street to the south.
All of those
properties are also within the Upper East Side Historic District.
- 4 -
Solicitation From NAT
During 2003, the National Architectural Trust2 (NAT)
contacted Mr. Friedberg to ask him to donate an easement on the
subject property.
Mr. Friedberg met with Sean Zalka (Mr. Zalka),
a representative from NAT, to discuss donating a facade easement.
After the meeting, Mr. Zalka sent Mr. Friedberg an email in which
he wrote:
Per our conversation, attached please find the following
materials for your review:
1. A revised profile of your estimated tax benefit, showing
the additional tax benefits available for the extinguishment
of the development rights on the site.
The sheet labeled
'Development Rights Retained' shows your estimated tax
benefits using our standard easement document. According to
my calculations, your total tax deduction would increase to
$3.5 million from $1.43 million.
2. Additional language for insertion into our standard
easement document to extinguish the development rights. All
or a portion of the development rights may be extinguished.
As we discussed, the extinguishment of all or a portion of
the additional development rights on a property such as
yours (located within a 9 FAR zoning district) would provide
an additional tax deduction of 100% of the value of those
development rights. Recent appraisals of development rights
in the Upper East Side Historic District have come in at
$150 to $170 per square foot. With an estimated 13,800
square feet of development rights, you would receive an
additional tax deduction of $2,070,000 (at $150 PSF).
2The National Architectural Trust has since changed its name
to "Trust for Architectural Easements".
- 5 Per zoning regulations, you have the right to develop a
building of 20, 700 square feet on the ab >ve referenced site.
However, local landmark regulations stri tly limit your
ability to do so. Although this footage is currently
undevelopable given the location of the property within a
landmark district, the IRS allows these deductions based on
the perpetuity of the easement versus th¼ local landmark
restrictions, which are entirely discretionary and can be
changed at any time (although this is highly unlikely) .
We are currently working with a. number of property owners to
structure deductions of this kind.
In o¶der to substantiate
these deductions, we recommend the use of a particular
appraiser based in Pittsburgh who is the most highly
respected in the specialty field of lost development rights
appraisals. He would charge approximate y $16,000 for a
property of this kind (versus $2, 500 for a standard
appraisal) .
We would also need a zoning consultant to
determine the exact.amount of development rights that
currently exist on the site .
Please let me know if you are interested in taking advantage
of this aspect of our program.
Mr. Zalka attached a spreadsheet to his email
hat provided an
estimate of the tax savings available to Mr. F iedberg should he
decide to donate to NAT the facade easement and development
rights for the subject property.
Mr. Zalka's spreadsheet read as
follows:
THE NATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL TRUST
Profile of Estimated Tax Benefit1
134 East 71st Street (Development Right s Extinguished)
Estimated Fair Market Value
$ 13,000,000
Conservation Easement Value (11% of FMV)2
$
Estimated Development Rights Value
$
(See Development Rights Analysis Worksheet)
Total Estimated Gross Tax Deduction
$
1, 430, 000
2,070,000
3,500,000
Tax-Deductible Cash Donations
(10% of Gross Tax Deduction)
Appraisal
Lender Subordination Fee (if applicable)
Total Estimated Tax-Deductible Costs
$
350,000
$
16,000
$
366,000
Total Estimated Charitable Contribution
Tax Deduction
$
3,866,000
Total Estimated Federal, State and City
Income Tax Savings (42.5% Tax Bracket)
$
1,643,050
Total Estimated Cash Savings
$
1,277,050
1For illustrative purposes only.
advisor.
Please consult your tax
2Actual figure determined by appraisal, typically 11% of FMV
for comparable properties.
After reviewing NAT's materials, Mr. Friedberg decided to donate
to NAT a facade easement and all the development rights
associated with the subject property.
Mr. Ehrmann's Appraisal Report
Mr. Friedberg followed NAT's recommendation and engaged
Michael Ehrmann (Mr. Ehrmann) of Jefferson & Lee Appraisals,
Inc., based in Pittsburgh, to appraise the subject property.
Mr. Friedberg paid $16,000 to Jefferson & Lee Appraisals, Inc.,
for the appraisal.
Mr. Ehrmann visited the subject property and
conducted an inspection during November 2003.
Mr. Ehrmann
prepared an appraisal report at some time after he had inspected
the subject property.
The appraisal report states that the "as
of" date was variously October 5, 2003; November 13, 2003; or
November 15, 2003.
Mr. Ehrmann signed, but did not date, the
"certification of value" on page 3 of the appraisal report.
The
cover letter accompanying the report is dated both December 5 and
December 15, 2003, but Mr.. Ehrmann did not si n or date the cover
letter.
The appraisal report includes the address for Mr.
Ehrmann's firm, Jefferson & Lee Appraisals, I c., and it lists
the address of the subject property.
The appraisal report states that it "has been prepared for
tax purposes, in order to determine the loss
f value due to a
facade easement to be donated on the subject
roperty."
The
appraisal report includes a number of pages of background on the
economic, social, cultural, environmental, and political forces
that influence property values in New York Cit .
With regard to
the effect of political forces, including local zoning laws, on
property values, Mr. Ehrmann wrote:
Property values are influenced by go ernment, political
and legal actions which effect [sic] the market forces of
supply and demand.
* * * The extent and nature of local
zoning, building and health codes are also contributing
factors to land use as it [sic] affects the value of real
estate. National, state and local fiscal policies affect
property values and special legislation sùch as rent control
laws, statutory redemption laws, forms of ownership,
homestead exemption laws, environmental legislation and
legislation affecting mortgage lending in titutions may
inf luence general property values .
.
On the basis of the lot's location in an R9X z ning district,
permitting a "floor area ratio"3 (FAR) of 9.0 f r residential
3New York City's Zoning Resolution provides the following
definition for "floor area ratio":
(continued. . . )
I
- 8 -
property, Mr. Ehrmann calculated that the lot had a maximum
development potential of 20,786.94 square feet, approximately
13,731 square feet of which was unused.4
Mr. Ehrmann wrote:
Although the underlying zoning would permit expansion
of the subject property up to the maximum development
potential, I believe that the New York City Landmarks
Preservation Commission, which has authority over the Upper
East Side Historical [sic] District, would block such an
expansion.
However, the subject owner clearly has the right
to transfer/see [sic] these development rights for use on
neighboring blocks within the Historical District.
Furthermore, I believe that developments utilizing
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) would [be] feasible in
this area, particularly along Lexington Avenue.
New York statutes define transfer of development rights
(TDR) as "the process by which development rights are
transferred from one lot, parcel, or area of land ln a
sending district to another lot, parcel, or area of land in
one or more receiving districts."
* * *
In many TDR programs, the zoning provisions applicable
to the sending district are amended to reduce the density at
which land can be developed. While losing their right to
develop their properties at the formerly permitted
densities, property owners in the sending district are
awarded development rights. These development rights are
3(...continued)
"Floor area ratio" is the total floor area on a zoning lot,
divided by the lot area of that zoning lot. If two or more
buildings are located on the same zoning lot, the floor area
ratio is the sum of their floor areas divided by the lot
area. (For example, a zoning lot of 10,000 square feet with
a building containing 20,000 square feet of floor area has a
floor area ratio of 2.0, and a zoning lot of 20,000 square
feet with two buildings containing a total of 40,000 square
feet of floor area also has a floor area ratio of 2.0).
New York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution sec. 12-10 (2011).
'Respondent accepts those numbers as accurate for purposes
of these motions.
regarded as severable from the land owne ship and
transferable by their owners.
* * *
The appraisal report then describes different aspects of
transferable development rights programs in g neral, without any
reference to the particular program implemented in New York City.
Mr. Ehrmann found that the "sales compar son approach" was
the most appropriate valuation method for estimating the market
value of the subject property before and after the donation.
wrote:
He
"In the following sections of this repbrt, I have
estimated the market value of the subject prop rty both before
and af ter donation of the proposed easement ut lizing the Sales
Comparison Approach to value."
Mr. Ehrmann used the following
sales to estimate the before value of the subject property:
Date
Address
·
4/15/03
3 /26/03
1/17 /03
1/15/03
8/26/02
6/17/02
5/6/02
2/16/02
2/14/02
36 East 67th St
631 Park Ave
151 East 72d St
123 East 73d St
54 East 92d St
10 East 87th St
46 East 69th St
20 East 73d St
10 East 75th St
Sale Price
Square Price Per
Feet Square Foot
Adjusted
$/Sg Ft
Historic
District?
$9,750,000
9, 650 , 000
8, 187, 500
10 , 250, 000
9, 000, 000
8,200,000
10,250,000
17, 000, 000
8,250,000
16,235 $1,216.5]
5, 143
1, 876 . 34
5, 885
1, 391. 25
8, 625 ' 1, 188 . 41
4, 320
2, 083 . 33
8,791
932.77
8,500
1,205.88
9, 345
1, 819 . 15
8,930
923.85
$1,655.80
1, 778 . 20
1, 701. 13
1, 775 . 24
2, 595 . 79
1,609.16
1,755.77
2, 281. 21
1,527.13
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mr. Ehrmann adjusted those sale prices to take into account
dif ferences between those properties and the s bject property due
to the following factors:
Time of sale; locat on; condition of
the property; size; and whether the property ir cluded a finished
basement.
Although the properties were subject to different
zoning, Mr. Ehrmann did not make any adjustments because, he
- 10 -
wrote:
"I do not believe that the varying zones have an impact
on subject value."
After making all of his adjustments, Mr.
Ehrmann averaged the adjusted prices and arrived at $1,853.27 per
square foot, which he rounded to $1,855 and used as his estimate
for the value of the subject property as of the appraisal date.
On the basis of the subject property's gross floor area of 7,056
square feet, Mr. Ehrmann estimated that the subject property's
total value was $13,090,000.
In addition to estimating the subject property's fair market
value, Mr. Ehrmann sought to appraise the development rights that
"could be transferred to a nearby property s [sic] as TDRs."
To
do so, he identified five transfers involving development rights
on the east side of Manhattan.
Three of the five transfers
involved the sale of development rights by themselves; the other
two involved the sale of an entire tract that included
development rights previously acquired.
Mr. Ehrmann calculated
the price per FAR foot for each of the sales and then averaged
those figures to reach an average of $154.40 per FAR foot.
He
then considered some general categories of adjustments, including
time, location, size, zoning, and historic restrictions.
With
regard to historic restrictions, he wrote:
The subject is part of the Upper East Side Historic
District, with significant historic restrictions. None of
the previous improvements on the comparable sites had a
similar status.
Furthermore, there do not appear to be
historically protected properties in the immediate
vicinities of the TDR comparables. As discussed previously,
- 11 the subject. TDRs can only be utilized in a limited
geographic area near the site. However, the TDRs
transferred to the comparable properties do not appear to
have had the same restriction.
I believe that the restrictions on the subject TDRs
make these development rights somewhat 1 ss valuable than
the apparently unrestricted rights purchased in the
comparable transact ions .
Mi^. Ehrmann's comments reflect the fact that
one of the other
sales he considered was in a historic district .
The average
price per FAR foot of the ·comparable sales reported by Mr.
Ehrmann was $154 . 4 0 .
However, Mr . Ehrmann e s timated that the
value of the unused development rights on the subject property
was $170 per FAR foot.
He explained his reasoning as follows:
I have identified five adjustment factors applicable to
the TDR comparables.
Three of the factors -- time,
location, and size of the TDR -- support upward adjustments
of a number of the comparable unit prices. The two other
factors -- zoning and landmark limitations -- support
downward adjustments of all of the compar ble unit prices .
TDR transactions are complex. I have not made specific
adjustments of each comparable for each adjustment factor
discussed above. However, based on the o erall adjustments,
I estimate that the value of the TDRs on the subject
property as of $170.00 per FAR foot.
Mr . Ehrmann calculated that the total value of the unused
development rights associated with the subject property was
$2,335,000.
He then added that value to his before estimate of
the value of the subject property to arrive at a total value for
the subject property of $15, 425, 000 .
The second half of the appraisal report p ovides an estimate
of the value of the subject property after the facade easement.
- 12 In an introduction, Mr. Ehrmann explained that there are several
reasons property values are negatively affected by facade
easements.
One of the factors he listed was "the loss of the
right to develop the property up to the maximum density allowed
under the subject zone."
Other factors included potentially
increased maintenance costs, loss of flexibility in changing
exterior design, and the inability of future owners to use the
tax advantages from an easement contribution.
Mr. Ehrmann noted:
The best measure of the impact of these elements on
property values is the market place [sic].
I have been able
to identify a number of examples of the impact of easements
on properties in both New Orleans and Washington, two cities
where facade easements have been most actively used.
Mr. Ehrmann provided six examples of sales of eased properties in
Washington, D.C., during the mid-1980s and two examples of
transactions involving eased properties in New Orleans during the
mid-1990s.
Mr. Ehrmann constructed the following table to summarize his
research on comparable sales involving facade easements:
Property #
Easement Loss
1
2
3
4
5
6
27.9%
18.3%
8.9%
18.6%
22.5%
8%
7
30-40% increase in renovation costs
8
11+%
The average facade "easement loss" of the six sales of eased
properties (i.e., properties 1 through 6, the Washington, D.C.,
- 13 sales) was 17.4 percent.
However, Mr. Ehrmann estimated that the
facade easement on the subject property decreased its value by 11
percent.
He provided the following analysis to explain his
reasoning:
The comparable data shows estimated losses ranging from
8% to 27.9%. The residential properties had losses
ranging from 8% to 22.5%.
Most. of the e amples that I have
identified took place during the 1980s, when the facade
easement . programs in both Washington and New Orleans were
relatively new.
Comparables #7 and #8 are based on recent
marke t deve lopment s .
The subject property is a residenti l dwelling in
excellent condition and degree of finish. Based on the
comparable data, with particular emphasis on Eased Property
#8, I estimate that
[the]
facade easement will result in a
loss of value of 11% of the value of the ctual subject
improvement before donation of the easement.
On the basis of his estimate of 11 percent, Mr. Ehrmann
calculated that the facade easement would reduce the value of the
subject property by $1,439,000, which he rounded to $1,440,000.
He stated that, after the easement, the unused development rights
would have no value.
He therefore estimated t at the "after"
value of the subj ect property was $11, 650 , 0 00 .
Mr . Ehrmann
concluded that the loss in value due to the fa ade easement was
$3, 775, 000 .
sThat figure reflects the value of both the facade easement
and the development rights, but Mr. Ehrmann stated that it
represented "the estimated market value of the loss due to the
easement."
- 14 -
The Donation
On December 3, 2003, Mr. Friedberg executed a Conservation
Deed of Easement (conservation deed).
The conservation deed
provided, in part:
II.
The Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the Grantee, TO
HAVE AND TO HOLD, an easement in gross, in perpetuity, in,
on, and to the Property, Building and to the Facade, being a
Scenic, Open Space and Architectural Facade Conservation
Easement on the Property, with the following rights:
A. Without the express written consent of the Grantee,
which consent may be withheld, conditioned or delayed in the
sole and absolute discretion of the Grantee, the Grantor
will not undertake nor suffer nor permit to be undertaken
with respect to that part of the Facade visible from the
street-level on the opposite side of 134 E. 71st Street:
1.
any alteration, construction or remodeling of
existing improvements on the Property, or the placement
thereon or on the Building of signs or markers, that
would materially alter or change the appearance of the
Facade;
2. the exterior extension of existing improvements on
the Property or the erection of any new or additional
improvements on the property or in the open space above .
or the erection of any new or additional improvements
on the Property or in the open space above or
surrounding the existing improvements except for,
subject to the consent of the Grantee which consent
will not be unreasonably withheld, the erection of new
improvements, including an architecturally consistent
Facade, to replace existing improvements which have
been wholly or partially destroyed (e.g., by fire); or
3. the painting or cleaning of the Facade in a manner
incompatible with the protection and preservation of
the Facade * * *.
*
*
*
- 15 D. ·Grantor hereby agrees that the follo ing acts or uses
are expressly forbidden in, on, over, orlunder the Property,
except as otherwise conditioned or permi ted in writing by
Grantee: there shall be no use, exercise or transfer by
Grantor or Grantee of development rights from or to the
Property, any portion thereof or derived from any portion
thereof.
For the purposes hereof, the tèrm "development
rights" includes, without limitation, any and all rights,
however designated, now or hereafter associated with the
Property or any other property that may e used, pursuant to
applicable zoning laws or other. governmental laws or
regulations to compute permitted size, h ight, bulk or
number of structures, development density, lot yield, or any
similar development variable on or perta ning to the
Property or -any other property. Both parties hereto
recognize and agree that, subject to all other conditions of
this Easement, all current and future development rights
have been donated to the Grantee for the purposes of forever
(i) removing such rights from the Propert , (ii)
extinguishing such rights, and (iii) further preventing the
transfer or use of such rights.
*
*
*
*
IV.
A. This easement is binding not only upon Grantor but also
upon its successors, heirs and assigns and all other
successors in interest to the Grantor, anÅ shall continue as
a servitude running in perpetuity with the land. This
easement shall survive any termination of the Grantor's or
the Grantee's existence. The rights of the Grantee under
this instrument shall run for the benefit of and may be
exercised by its successors and assigns, or by its designees
duly authorized in a deed of easement.
B. Grantor covenants that it will not transfer, assign or
otherwise convey its rights under this conservation easement
except to another "qualified organization described in
Section 170(h) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
controlling Treasury regulations, and Grantee further agrees
that it will not transfer this easement unless the
transferee first agrees to continue to ca ry out the
conservation purposes for which the easement was created,
provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be
construed to limit the Grantee's right to give its consent
(e.g., to changes in the Facade) or to abandon some or all
of its rights hereunder.
- 16 -
C. In the event this easement is ever extinguished, whether
through condemnation, judicial decree or otherwise, Grantor
agrees on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors and
assigns, that Grantee, or its successors or assigns, will be
entitled to receive upon the subsequent sale, exchange or
involuntary conversion of the Property, a portion of the
proceeds from such sale, exchange or conversion equal to the
same proportion that the value of the initial easement
donation bore to the entire value of the property at the
time of donation as estimated by a state licensed appraiser,
unless controlling state law provides that the Grantor is
entitled to the full proceeds in such situations, without
regard to the easement. Grantee agrees to use any proceeds
so realized in a manner consistent with the conservation
purposes of the original contribution.
The conservation deed was the only agreement between Mr.
Friedberg and NAT.
The conservation deed was recorded with the
New York City Department of Finance, Office of the City Register.
By letter dated December 17, 2003, NAT acknowledged Mr.
Friedberg's gift of a conservation easement on the subject
property.
That letter certified that no goods or services were
received by Mr. Friedberg in exchange for his gift.
Procedural History
Petitioners timely filed their joint 2003 Federal income tax
return.
They deducted $3,775,000 for the donation of the facade
easement and development rights on the subject property.
Petitioners appended Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions,
signed by Mr. Ehrmann and by the president of NAT.
It described
the subject property by providing its address, and it described
the condition of the subject property as "Historic Facade
Conservation Easement".
Petitioners did not provide information
- 17 on the Form 8283 about the date they acquired the subject
property, how they acquired it, or their cost or adjusted basis
in the subject property.
The Form 8283 did not mention the
donation of the development rights .
The date of appraisal
provided on the Form 8283 was November 15, 20 3 .
Petitioners
also attached to their tax return a copy of Mr. Ehrmann's
appraisal report.
On or about January 23,.2009, respondent mailed to
petitioners' last known address a statutory notice of deficiency.
Petitioners timely filed their petition with this Court on April
20,
2009.
Discussion
Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary
judgment upon all or any part of the legal 1ssues in controversy.
Full or partial summary judgment may be granted only if no
genuine issue exists as to any material fact and the issues
presented by the motion may be decided as a matter of law.
See
Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
520
(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965
(7th Cir.
1994) .
98 T.C.
518,
As explained below,
we conclude that we are able to resolve some of the issues
presented on the basis of the undisputed facts contained in the
parties' moving papers, including the attachme ts thereto.
- 18 I.
Whether the Appraisal Report Was a "Qualified Appraisal"
Section 170(a) (1) allows taxpayers to deduct charitable
contributions only if those contributions are verified under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Those regulations
require that a taxpayer claiming a noncash charitable
contribution of more than $5,000:
(1) Obtain a qualified
appraisal of the property contributed;
(2) attach a fully
completed appraisal summary (i.e., Form 8283) to the tax return
on which the deduction is claimed; and (3) maintain records
pertaining to the claimed contribution in accordance with section
1.170A-13 (b) (2) (ii),
Tax Regs.
Income Tax Regs.
Sec.
170A-13(c) (2),
Income
To constitute a qualified appraisal, the regulations
require, among other things, that an appraisal be made not
earlier than 60 days before the date of contribution of the
appraised property nor later than the due date of the tax return
on which a deduction is first claimed; be prepared, signed, and
dated by a qualified appraiser; and include the following
information:
(A) 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 (or will be) contributed;
(B)
In the case of tangible property, the physical
condition of the property;
(C)
donee;
The date (or expected date) of contribution to the
- 19 -
(D)
The terms of any agreement or nderstanding
entered into (or expected to be entered i.nto) by or on
behalf of the donor or donee that relates to the use, sale,
or other disposition of the property contkributed, * * *
*
(E)
*
*
*
*
*
*
The name, address, and * * * identifying number of
the qualified appraiser; and, if the qua ified appraiser is
acting in his or her capacity as * * * an employee of any
person * * *, the name, address, and tax ayer identification
number * * * of the * * * person who employs or engages the
qualified appraiser;
(F) The qualifications of the qualified appraiser who
signs the appraisal, including the appraiser's background,
experience, education, and membership, if any, in
professional. appraisal associations;
(G) A statement that the appraisal
income tax purposes;
as prepared for
(H) The date (or dates) on which th
appraised;
property was
(I)
The appraised fair market value (within the
meaning of § 1.170A-1(c) (2)) of the prope ty on the date (or
expected date) of contribution;
(J)
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-d preciation
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 mployed.
Sec. 1. 170A-13 (c) (3) (ii) , Income Tax Regs .
Th se regulations
were promulgated in response to Congress' mand te in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 1984
691.
265
(DEFRA), Pub. L.
98-369,
sec.
155,
98 Stat.
As we explained in Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258,
(1997), affd. without published opinion 166 F.3d 332
(4th
- 20 -
Cir. 1998), the primary purpose of DEFRA section 155 was to
"provide a mechanism whereby respondent would obtain sufficient
return information in support of the claimed valuation of
charitable contributions of property to enable respondent to deal
more effectively with the prevalent use of overvaluations."
Respondent contends that Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal report
fails to meet the requirements of section 1.170A-13(c) (3) (ii) (C),
(H),
(I),
(J), and (K), Income Tax Regs.
subdivision (ii) (C),
With respect to
(H), and (I), respondent contends that the
appraisal report is not a qualified appraisal because it does not
contain the date of the contribution, is ambiguous as to the date
the subject property was appraised, and does not value the
subject property as of the date it was actually contributed.
Petitioners contend that, although the appraisal report contains
typographical errors with regard to dates, those errors are minor
and the report substantially complies with subdivision(ii) (C),
(H), and (I) of section 1.170A-13(c) (3),
Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners rely on our holding in Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C.
32, 41 (1993), in which we concluded that because the reporting
requirements of section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs., did not
"relate to the substance or essence of whether or not a
charitable contribution was actually made" and because the
taxpayers had satisfied all the elements required to establish
the "substance or essence" of their contribution, the taxpayers
- 21 -
were entitled to the deduction claimed because they had
"substantially complied" with the requirements of the
regulations.
Similarly, in the instant case, the erro s regarding the
date of the appraisal report do not relate to the substance or
essence of the contribution.
Rather, the requirements relating
the proper dating of the appraisal and contribution are more
procedural.
Commissioner,
See Bond v. Commissioner, supra at 41·; Dunavant v.
63 T. C.
316,
319-320
(1974)
(noting that
nonadherence to requirements that are "procedural and therefore
directory" may sometimes be excused) .
Although there may be
cases in which the failure to meet those requirements would be
significant, the instant case is not such a case.
We are
persuaded that the discrepancies were merely typographical errors
and that the report was completed within the 60-day period before
the date of contribution, as required by section 1.170A13 (c) (3) (ii) (A) , Income Tax Regs .
Accordingly) we conclude that
the appraisal report substantially complies with the requirements
of subdivision (ii) (C) ,
(H) ,
and (I) .
042
Additionally, respondent contends that the appraisal report
does not meet the requirements of subdivision (ii) (J) and (K)
because it fails to include the method and the specific basis for
valuing the facade easement and the development rights.
general, the amount allowed as a charitable cor tribution
In
- 22 deduction is the fair market value of the contributed property.
Sec. 1.170A-1(c) (1), Income Tax Regs.
The fair market value of a
property is the price at which it would change hands between a
willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any
compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of
relevant facts.
Sec. 1.170A-1(c) (2), Income Tax Regs.
Because
no established market exists for determining the fair market
value of an easement, the "before and after" approach has often
been applied to determine the fair market values of restrictive
easements with respect to which charitable contribution
deductions have been claimed.
See, e.g., Hilborn v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C.
677
(1985); Simmons v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2009-208, affd.
646 F.3d 6
(D.C. Cir. 2011); Griffin v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-130, affd.
1990).
911 F.2d 1124
(5th Cir.
The before and after method operates by taking the
difference between the value of the property immediately before
the contribution and the value of the property immediately after.
Hilborn v. Commissioner, supra at 689.
An appraiser may use the
comparable sales method, or another accepted method, to estimate
the before and after values.
Id.
An appraiser using the comparable sales method, also known
as the market-data approach, locates sales of properties that
meet three criteria:
(1) The properties themselves are similar
to the property being appraised;
(2) the sales are arm's-length
- 23 -
transactions; and (3) the sales have occurred within a reasonable
time of .the valuation date.
Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1, 19 (1979) .
Because no two sales and no
two properties are ever identical, the appraiser then considers
aspects of the comparable transactions, such as time, size of the
property, or other significant features, and
akes appropriate
adjustments for each to approximate .the qualit ies of the property
being appraised.
1197,
1229 n.24
Estate of Spruill v. Commissioner, 88 T.C.
(1987); Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 19.
Although the Court has accepted the
use of the comparable sales method, we recognize that it, like
all valuation techniques, is far from an exact science.
Wolfsen
Land & Cattle Co. .v. Commissioner, supra at 19.
The "before" value of the property considers the highest and
best use of the property before its restrictio
Hilborn v. Commissioner, supra at 689.
by the easement.
If different from the
current use, a proposed highest and best use requires "closeness
in time" and "reasonable probability".
Id.
The highest and best
use takes into account existing zoning or historic preservation
laws that restrict the property's development potential even
without a preservation easement.
Simmons v. Commissioner, supra.
We have held that an explanation of the valuation method
used and the specific basis for the appraised value are essential
because "'Without any reasoned analysis, * * * [the appraiser's]
- 24 -
report is useless.'"
Friedman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-
45 (quoting Jacobson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-401);
Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-151, on appeal (2d
Cir.,
Sept. 2,
2010, Dec. 30, 2010).
Petitioners contend that Mr. Ehrmann used the comparable
sales method to estimate the value of the subject property before
and after Mr. Friedberg donated the facade easement and the
development rights to NAT.
Indeed, Mr. Ehrmann stated in his
appraisal report that he was applying the "Sales Comparison
Approach".
For purposes of the instant motions, respondent does
not contest the method Mr. Ehrmann used to arrive at the "before"
value for the subject property, nor does respondent contest that
value.'
Rather, respondent contends that Mr. Ehrmann failed to
properly apply the comparable sales method to valuing the subject
property after the facade easement, and respondent contends that
Mr. Ehrmann failed to apply any acceptable method to valuing the
development rights.
We will first consider respondent's
contention with respect to the facade easement.
A.
Appraising the Facade Easement
Mr. Ehrmann's method for using comparable sales to estimate
the before value of the subject property offers a textbook
'Respondent does not contest the "before" value Mr. Ehrmann
estimated using comparable sales, but respondent does contest Mr.
Ehrmann's appraisal of the development rights and his addition of
that value to the "before" value.
See infra pp. 36-54.
- 25 example of how the comparable sales method works.
He located
nine sales of similar properties that were close to the subject
property in both time and geography.
He.made a series of
adjustments to the sale price of each propert
and explained in
detail his rationale for making those adjustments.
Finally,
after making the adjustments, he averaged the prices per square
foot for all of the properties and used that average price per
square foot to estimate the market value of the subject property
before Mr. Friedberg donated the easement.
In contrast to his before valuation, Mr. Ehrmann's approach
to valuing the subject property after the ease ent donation
diverged significantly from the accepted comparable sales method.
To properly apply the comparable sales method, Mr . Ehrmann should
have located sales of similar properties in New York City with
facade easements, made appropriate adjustmentsl, and then used the
average prices of those sales to estimate the àfter value of the
subject property.
However, without explanation, Mr. Ehrmann
elected to use sales of eased properties in Washington, D. C. , and
transactions related to eased properties in Ne
Orleans to
estimate the percentage diminution in value associated with
facade easements in general.
Mr. Ehrmann then used the
percentage diminution he purported to derive from those
transactions and multiplied it by his estimated before value of
the subject property to estimate the loss in v lue associated
- 26 -
with the facade easement.
That approach is not consistent with
the comparable sales method Mr. Ehrmann claimed he was applying.
Not only did Mr. Ehrmann not actually use the comparable
sales method or any other method the Court has sanctioned, but he
also failed to consistently apply a single method to his
estimates of percentage diminution, and the various methods he
used were unreasonable.
To reasonably apply the method Mr.
Ehrmann appeared to use, to which we will hereinafter refer as
the percentage diminution method, Mr. Ehrmann would have needed
to apply the comparable sales method to each of the Washington,
D.C., and New Orleans properties he considered.
Instead, he
applied a hodgepodge of approaches, most of which were
unreasonable.
The first Washington, D.C., property Mr. Ehrmann considered
was a mixed-use building with a gallery and two rental units.
It
was purchased in 1982 for $350,000, underwent $80,000 of
improvements, and was resold in September 1984 for $330,000.
Mr.
Ehrmann's estimate, which was based on the amount invested in the
property and on a survey showing that sale prices in the Dupont
Circle neighborhood appreciated by a total of 6.5 percent during
the period from 1981 to 1984, indicated that the easement
decreased the property's value by 27.9 percent.
Mr. Ehrmann did not explain how the $80,000 was used to
improve the property, nor why it was appropriate to simply add
- 27 -
$80,000 to the price of the property to estimate what it would
have been worth without the easement.
Without such an
explanation, it was unreasonable for Mr. Ehrmann to assume that
the $80,000 increased, dol-lar for dollar, the value of the
property.7
Moreover, it was unreasonable for Mr. Ehrmann'to
apply a 6.5-percent appreciation to the prope ty on the grounds
that the properties in the neighborhood appreciated by that
amount over the course of 3 years, given that the owner held the
property for only 2 years.
The second Washington, D.C., property was a residential
building with two rental units that was sold during July 1985 for
$237,000, or $69.71 per square foot.
On the basis of the sale of
a similar property on the same block for $85.29 per square foot
during July 1984, Mr. Ehrmann estimated that the easement reduced
the property's value by 18.3 percent.
Mr. Ehrmann's method of estimating the percentage diminution
with regard to the second property can best be described as a
very abbreviated comparable sales method.
He
ound one other
property that he considered similar, made no adjustments to the
price of that property, and simply assumed that the eased
It is conceivable that the $80,000 could have increased the
value of the property by more than $80,000, that it could have
increased it by less than that amount, or that it could even have
decreased the value of the property. For instance, the owner
could have spent $80,000 painting and decorati g the house in a
manner peculiar to his own aesthetic tastes but displeasing to
most buyers.
- 28 -
property would have sold for the same price absent the easement.
In contrast, the acceptable comparable sales method requires the
examination of multiple similar properties and corresponding
adjustments, accompanied by explanations.
See Wolfsen Land &
Cattle Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 19.
Mr. Ehrmann's
shortcut was an unreasonable approach to estimating the
percentage diminution of the eased property's value.
The third Washington, D.C., property Mr. Ehrmann considered
was an owner-occupied home with a rental unit in the basement
that sold for $610,000 during December 1986.
The sale price
included 3 months of free rent for the seller.
Pursuant to the
terms of an agreement with the buyer, the seller reduced the sale
price and claimed the tax deduction for a facade easement on the
house donated at about the same time as the sale.
According to
an appraisal of the property as of December 1986, the easement
reduced the value of the property by 8.9 percent.
With regard to the third property, Mr. Ehrmann relied
entirely upon another appraisal, about which nothing is set forth
in his report.
Without information regarding that appraiser's
methods, experience, etc., it is impossible to review the
reasonableness of the conclusion reached in that appraisal.
We
assume, therefore, that it was unreasonable for Mr. Ehrmann to
rely on that appraisal as an estimate of the percentage
diminution attributable to the facade easement.
- 29 -
Mr. Ehrmann's fourth Washington, D.C., property was a
single-family house that sold for $215,000 du ing March 1985.
On the basis of the sale for $255,000 of a slightly larger but
otherwise "almost identical" home on- the same block at around the
same time, Mr. Ehrmann estimated that the easement decreased the
value of the property by 18.6 percent.8
The approach Mr. Ehrmann used to estimate the percentage
diminution in value of his fourth Washington, D.C., property is
similar to the approach used with the second.
It is unreliable
for the same reasons we set forth above and for an additional
reason:
he did not make any attempt to adjust the sale price of
the comparable property to reflect the fact that the eased
property was smaller.
The fifth Washington, D.C., property was
two-unit, owner-
occupied property sold for $127,400 during July 1985.
Solely
aIt is unclear how Mr. Ehrmann arrived at 18.6 percent. A
reduction from $255,000 to $215,000 represents a decrease in
value of 15.7 percent. According to Mr. Ehrmann's report, the
$255,000 home was "slightly larger" than the höme with the
easement, which would presumably require a reduction in the sale
price of $255,000 by some amount to reflect th fact that the
eased home, being smaller, would have sold for less than the
$255,000 home even without an easement. Mr. E rmann did not
appear to make any such adjustment; any adjustment made would
have corresponded to a decrease in value of le s than 15.7
percent.
We suspect that Mr. Ehrmann actually divided $40,000
(i.e., the difference between the $255,000 sale and the $215,000
sale) by $215,000 to arrive at his figure of 18.6 percent. That
calculation was an error. When calculating the percentage
reduction in value, the numerator should be the amount of the
reduction and the denominator should be the "before" value, not
the "after" value.
- 30 -
upon the basis of the original asking price of $159,000, Mr.
Ehrmann estimated that the easement reduced the property's value
by 22.5 percent.'
To reach his estimate of the percentage diminution in the
value of the fifth property, Mr. Ehrmann made another
unreasonable assumption:
that the asking price for the house was
an accurate estimate of the value of the property before the
easement.
We see no reason to believe that an asking price is an
accurate measure of the value of a house, and Mr. Ehrmann has
provided no reason to believe it was.
Mr. Ehrmann's sixth Washington, D.C., property was a singlefamily home with a separate English basement apartment that sold
during July 1985 for $155,000, or $55.75 per square foot.
Five
other.properties were sold on neighboring blocks during the same
period for $58.16 to $120.40 per square foot.
After making
unexplained adjustments for "degree of finish and time of sale",
Mr. Ehrmann concluded that "the data supports at least an 8% loss
in value" due to the easement.
Mr. Ehrmann's method for estimating the percentage
diminution in the value of the sixth property was the only method
that resembled any reasonable method for estimating such a value.
9Even if we accept Mr. Ehrmann's logic, the reduction in
value is only 19.9 percent, not 22.5 percent. Mr. Ehrmann again
erred by dividing the reduction in value by the "after" value of
the property instead of the "before" value.
- 31 However, it was also flawed because Mr. Ehrmann provided no
explanation for how he made adjustments to account for
differences in degree of finish and time of sale.
property was sold during 1985, it would have
Given that the
een very difficult
for Mr. Ehrmann to have made reasonable adjustments for the
differences in finish between neighboring pro erties since such
adjustments would probably have been little better than
guesswork.
The two other transactions Mr. Ehrmann cóns1dered were
nonsale transactions on properties in New Orl ans.
Mr. Ehrmann
reported that design changes mandated because of an easement on
one residential property increased renovation costs by 35 to 40
percent.
The easement on that property was granted during 1996,
but Mr. Ehrmann's report provided no date for the renovation.
The second New Orleans transaction was the settlement of a
lawsuit filed by the 1994 purchasers of a property alleging that
the sellers failed to disclose the existence of the facade
easement.
The case was settled out of court, and Mr. Ehrmann was
not able to discover the exact amount of the settlement.
However, he wrote that it "reportedly" exceeded 11 percent of the
purchase price of the property.
Mr. Ehrmann did not disclose the
source from which he obtained the approximate amount of the
settlement.
- 32 Because they were not sales, the transactions involving
eased properties in New Orleans provide little insight about the
effect of facade easements on the sales of eased properties.
Even setting aside the problems with Mr. Ehrmann's estimates
of the percentage diminution in value for each of the above
properties, the problems with his approach are manifold.
Mr.
Ehrmann provided no explanation for his conclusion that the
properties in Washington, D.C., and New Orleans were comparable
to the subject property in New York City.
properties were very different.
Indeed, those
Most of the properties in
Washington, D.C., included at least one rental unit, and one of
the properties was even a multiunit rental property with a
gallery on the first floor.
Mr. Ehrmann himself discounted the
utility of that property when, because it was a nonresidential
property, he excluded it from his calculation of the average
diminution.
He provided no information about the facade
easements to which the other properties were subject despite the
fact that the provisions of such easements, depending upon how
restrictive they were, might have resulted in different after
values.
Additionally, Mr. Ehrmann failed to provide any rationale
for comparing properties from cities other than New York City.
Indeed, his use of properties from cities other than New York
City appears inconsistent with reasoning from his appraisal
- 33 -
report, where he wrote that property values are influenced by
local government actions and that the "extent and nature of local
zoning, building and health codes are also cor.tributing factors
to * * * the value of real estate."
Similarly, the appraisal report provides no indication of
why Mr. Ehrmann thought it appropriate to consider sales from the
mid-1980s in his valuation of a donation made during 2003.
Mr.
Ehrmann himself cast doubt on the value of using sales from the
mid-1980s 'when he placed more. emphasis on the New Orleans
transactions from the mid-1990s because, as he explained, those
transactions "are based on recent market deve opments."
Accordingly, even if Mr. Ehrmann's percentage diminution
method had been a reasonable means to estimate the after value of
the subject property, Mr. Ehrmann's applicati n of that method
was so riddled with errors and unreasonable assumptions as to
make his estimate of the subject property's a ter value
worthless.
Moreover, even Mr. Ehrmann's percentage diminution
method, accepted at face value, does not subs antiate the 11percent diminution in value that his report concluded was
appropriate to apply to the subject property.
As noted above,
the average percentage diminution for the six sale properties was
17.4 percent, not 11 percent.
Mr. Ehrmann chose to place "particular emphasis" on the
eighth property instead of basing his estimatèd percentage
- 34 diminution on the average of all the properties he had
considered.
However, the percentage diminution he reached for
his eighth property (a New Orleans property) was not even based
on the sale of an eased property.
Instead, it was based on the
settlement amount stemming from a lawsuit filed by a purchaser
against a seller because the seller had not disclosed the
existence of a facade easement on the sale property.
Mr. Ehrmann
provided no explanation of why he considered the amount of the
settlement to accurately establish how much the easement had
affected the value of the property, and we find such an
assumption unreasonable."
Worse, Mr. Ehrmann was not even sure
about the actual amount of the settlement.
Instead, he wrote
that it "reportedly" exceeded 11 percent of the purchase price.
In other words, it appears that Mr. Ehrmann's estimate for
the effect of a facade easement granted during 2003 on the value
"Given that the suit was brought after the purchasers had
begun to renovate the home, had been enjoined from conducting
those renovations by the holder of the easement, and had
subsequently reached an agreement with the easement holder to
complete modified renovations, it is likely that the settlement
amount also took into account damages to the purchaser resulting
from that suit, from increased costs of required changes to the
renovation work, and from any contract claims that may have
arisen from being forced to change renovation plans. Suffice it
to say that the purchaser's claims probably were considerably
more complex than simply the diminution in value of the property
resulting from the easement. Moreover, even if the purchaser's
claims had been related only to the diminution in value, there is
no reason to believe that the settlement amount would have been
an accurate indication of how much the easement affected the
value of the property.
- 35 of the subject property in New York City was actually based upon
a rumor about a settlement agreement reached during the mid-1990s
of a lawsuit filed against a seller for faili g to disclose the
existence of a facade easement on a.property in New Orleans..
Petitioners contend that the very inclusion of comparable
sales, regardless of how reasonable the use of those comparable
sales was, indicates compliance with the regulatory requirements
of a qualified appraisal.
We disagree.
Nothing ln,Mr. Ehrmann's
report supports his conclusion about the after value of the
subject property.
Indeed, it appears that Mr
Ehrmann arrived at
11 percent, the percentage of fair market val e that NAT had told
Mr. Friedberg was typical for facade easements', in spite of his
research on comparable sales and not because of it.
We note that
we previously have held that the mechanical application of a
percentage diminution to the fair market value before donation of
a facade easement does not constitute a method of valuation as
contemplated under section 1.170A-13(c) (3) (ii), Income Tax Regs.
See Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-151; see also
1982 East, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 20 1-84.
conclude that Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal report
We similarly
as not a qualified
appraisal with respect to its valuation of the facade easement.
Unlike the requirements of section 1.170Å-13(c) (3) (ii) (C),
(H), and (I), Income Tax Regs., the requirements of subdivision
(ii) (J) and (K) do relate to the substance or essence of the
- 36 -
contribution and the substantial compliance doctrine therefore
does not apply.
See Scheidelman v. Commissioner, supra.
explained in Scheidelman:
As we
"the lack of a recognized methodology
or specific basis for the calculated after-donation value is too
significant for us to ignore under the guise of substantial
compliance."
Id.
Accordingly, because petitioners did not
submit a qualified appraisal, they are not entitled to the
claimed deduction for the facade easement.
See Hewitt v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258 (1997); Scheidelman v. Commissioner,
supra.
B.
Appraising the Development Rights
We now consider whether Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal report
constituted a qualified appraisal with respect to the development
rights.
We begin by examining the nature of the development
rights in issue.
1.
Transferring Development Rights in New York City
The transferability of the development rights in issue in
the instant case is governed by New York City's Zoning
Resolution."
Pursuant to the Zoning Resolution, lot owners are
"The concept of development rights stems from restrictions
on the use of "air rights", the rights to construct a building on
top of the owner's land. Air rights are rooted in the bundle of
rights associated with land ownership. The New York Court of
Appeals has explained the concept of air rights as follows:
[A]ir rights, at the heart of the concept of zoning lot
merger, have historically been conceived as one of the
(continued...)
- 37 -
not permitted to construct buildings larger than a certain bulk,
determined by multiplying the lot's area by the FAR established
for the lot by the Zoning Resolution.
Resolution sec. 12-10 (2011).
New Yo¼k, N.Y., Zoning
For example, the owner of a
10,000-square-foot lot with an FAR of 10 would not be allowed to
construct a building with a floor area of mor
square feet.
than 100,000
The Zoning Resolution defines many different zoning
districts, which permit development in varying degrees.
See New
York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution secs. 11-122 (creating zoning
districts), 23-00 to 24-68 (laying out bulk rëstrictions for
residential districts), 33-00 to 35-63
(laying out bulk.
restrictions for commercial districts), 43-00 to 43-61 (laying
"(...continued)
bundle of rights associated with ownership of the land
rather than with ownership of the structtres erected on the
land. Air rights are incident to the owr.ership of the
surface property -- the right of one who owns the land to
utilize the space above it. This right Las been recognized
as an inherent attribute of the ownership of land since the
earliest times as reflected in the maxim, "[cujus] est
solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" ["to
whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to
the depths").
Macmillan,
Inc. v. CF Lex Associates, 437 N.E.2d 1134,
1137
(N.Y.
1982) (internal citations omitted).
However, the Zoning
Resolution limits the use of those air rights and gives property
owners the limited ability to transfer those ir rights. New
York City enacted the original Zoning Resolutïon during 1916 in
response to concerns about the shadows cast bý newly constructed
skyscrapers. See Note,."Development Rights Transfer in New York
City", 82 Yale L.J. 338 (1972). Because the Griginal height and
setback limitations proved insufficient to constrain crowding
growth, the Zoning Resolution was amended during 1961 to
incorporate FAR limitations. See id. at 344-348.
- 38 out bulk restrictions for manufacturing districts).
The zoning
designation and attendant development rights assigned to a parcel
depend on factors such as neighborhood character, access to
public transportation, and street width.
Marcus, "Air Rights in
New York City: TDR, Zoning Lot Merger and the Well-Considered
Plan", 50 Brook. L. Rev. 867,
869
(1984).
For the most part, rights to develop the lots are stationary
and may not be transferred to other lots, but the Zoning
Resolution provides several means by which the owner of one lot
may transfer some of the unused development rights associated
with that lot to another.
See New York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution
secs. 12-10 (defining zoning lot and explaining merged zoning
lots), 74-79 (transfer of development rights from landmark
sites); see also Landis et al.,
"Transferring Development Rights
in New York City", N.Y.L.J., Sept. 29, 2008; Marcus, supra;
Selver & Sillerman, "Transfers of Development Rights: What's New
-- And What Is Not", N.Y.L.J., Aug. 24, 2009.
The amount of
unused development rights associated with a given lot is the
difference between the actual floor area of the building
constructed on the lot and the maximum floor area that would be
permitted for that lot under the Zoning Resolution.
When New York City's Zoning Resolution was first amended to
incorporate FAR limitations during 1961, it permitted only one
means of transferring unused development rights:
property owners
- 39 -
were allowed to transfer'those unused development rights to
adjacent properties on the same block via a z ning lot merger.
Penn Central Transp.
Co. v. City of New York,
114
supra at 870-874.
(1978); Marcus,
438 U.S. 104,
113-
During 1968, a new
ordinance was enacted that gave additional transfer opportunities
to owners of properties that the Landmarks Preservation
Commission had designated landmarks."
v. City of New York, supra at 114.
Penn Central Transp. Co.
Under that ordinance, unused
development rights could be transferred from landmark sites to
properties across the street or across an intersection.
Id.
During 1969, another amendment further increas d options for
transferring development rights in certain commercial
districts."
Id.
Under the new amendment, dev lopment rights
from a landmark could be transferred to any lot in a chain of
contiguous properties under common ownership, as long as part of
"During 1965, in response to concerns about the destruction
of buildings with significant historical, architectural, and
cultural value, New York City adopted its Land arks Preservation
Law. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104,
108-109
(1978);
see N.Y. City Admin. Code, ch.
25,
sec. 303.
The
task of administering the law was given to the Landmarks
Preservation Commission. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New
York, supra at 110; see New York City Charter ch. 74, sec. 3020.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission was give the power to
designate landmarks, interior landmarks, and historic districts.
N.Y. City Admin. Code ch. 25,
sec. 303(a).
The 1968 and 1969 amendments were enacted to ensure that
the owners of Grand Central Terminal would have options to sell
their unused development rights.
Penn Central Transp. Co. v.
City of New York, supra at 114.
- 40 the chain was contiguous to or across the street from the
landmark site.
Id.
A chain of common ownership could extend
across streets or intersections.
Id.; see New York, N.Y., Zoning
Resolution secs. 74-79 to 74-793."
Aside from special transfer
rights granted to certain districts," zoning lot mergers and
"Zoning Resolution sec. 74-79 provides:
In all districts except R1, R2, R3, R4 or R5 Districts or C1
or C2 Districts mapped within such districts, for
developments or enlargements, the City Planning Commission
may permit development rights to be transferred to adjacent
lots from lots occupied by landmark buildings * * *
For the purposes of this Section, the term "adjacent lot"
shall mean a lot that is contiguous to the lot occupied by
the landmark building or other structure or one that is
across a street and opposite to the lot occupied by the
landmark building or other structure, or, in the case of a
corner lot, one that fronts on the same street intersection
as the lot occupied by the landmark building or other
structure.
It shall also mean, in the case of lots located
in C5-3,
C5-5, C6-6, C6-7 or C6-9 Districts, a lot
contiguous or one that is across a street and opposite to
another lot or lots that except for the intervention of
streets or street intersections, form a series extending to
the lot occupied by the landmark building or other
structure. All such lots shall be in the same ownership.
"Two such special districts are the Special South Street
Seaport District and the Theater Subdistrict. The Special South
Street Seaport District was created during 1972, and it allowed
excess development rights from certain lots in the core of the
district to be transferred to designated "receiving lots" near
the periphery of the district. Peck Slip Associates, LLC v. City
Council of New York,
789 N.Y.S.2d 806,
809
(Sup. Ct. 2004); see
New York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution, secs. 91-60 to -69. During
1998, the Zoning Resolution was amended to authorize the transfer
of development rights from "listed theaters" to receiving sites
anywhere within the Theater Subdistrict.
Fisher v. Giuliani, 720
(continued...)
- 41 -
transfers from landmarks to adjacent properties linked by a chain
of common ownership remain the only means by which property
owners may transfer their unused development rights .
v. Giuliani, 720 N.Y.S.2d 50,
52
See Fisher
(App. Div. 20 1); see also
Kruse, "Constructing the Special Theater Subdistrict: Culture,
Politics, and Economics in the Creation of Transferable
Development Rights", 40 Urb. Law. 95,
2.
115-119
(2008).
Mr. Friedberg's Ability To Transfer the Unused
Development Rights
The parties disagree about whether Mr . Friedberg could
transfer the unused development rights.
As we explained above,
with the exception of properties in a few specially designated
districts, there are only two means by which a property owner can
transfer unused development rights:
(1) Throucjh a zoning lot
merger, or (2) through the sale of unused development rights to a
property linked to that property by a chain of common ownership.
However, the second option is available only t
owners of
properties that have been designated landmarks by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission.
sec. 74--79.
See New York, N. Y. , Zoning Resolution
Respondent contends that because the subject
property has not been designated a landmark, Mr . Friedberg' s
options for transferring the unused development rights are
is (. . .continued)
N. Y . S . 2d 50,
52
(App. Div. 2001) ; see New York, N. Y . ,
Resolution sec. 81-744.
Zoning
- 42 limited to the first option.
Petitioners do not squarely address
respondent's argument because petitioners failed to identify the
relevant law governing the transfer of development rights in New
York City.
Petitioners premise their arguments regarding the sale of
their development rights on the 1989 New York State law that
authorizes cities to set up transferable development rights
programs.
See N.Y. Gen. City Law sec. 20-f
(McKinney 2003).
That law provides:
2.
In addition to existing powers and authorities to
regulate by planning or zoning including authorization to
provide for transfer of development rights pursuant to other
enabling law, the legislative body of any city is hereby
empowered to provide for transfer of development rights
subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth and such
other conditions as the city legislative body deems
necessary and appropriate that are consistent with the
purposes of this section, except that in cities of over one
million any transfer of development rights shall be provided
in the zoning ordinance after adoption by the city planning
commission and board of estimate.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
invalidate any provision for the transfer of development
rights heretofore or hereafter developed by any local
legislative body, or, in the case of cities over one
million, by the board of estimate.
Id.
As the State law makes clear, it was not intended to
invalidate or supplant any existing transferable development
rights program.
Indeed, the law's only effect is to enable local
governments to enact transferable development rights programs
similar to the one already adopted by New York City.
New York
- 43 -
City's Zoning Resolution, already in place well before the State
enacted New York General City Law section 20-f, remains the law
governing the transfer of development rights in New York City.
As noted above, New York City's Zoning Resolution generally
permits development rights transfers only via zoning lot mergers
and from "lots occupied by landmark buildings
structures".
79.
r other
New York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution secs. 12-10, 74-
Section 74-79 of the Zoning Resolution stipulates that a
"landmark building or other structure shall include any structure
designated as a landmark by the Landmarks Preservation Commission
and the Board of Estimate".
It also expressly states that it
does not permit the transfer of development rights from
structures within historic districts:
"No transfer of
development rights is permitted.pursuant to this Section from
those portions of zoning lots used for cemeter
purposes, any
structures. within historic districts, statues, monuments or
bridges.""
Id.
During 1970, city planners floated a proposal that would
have allowed owners of smaller midblock townhouses on the Upper
East Side's cross-streets to transfer their unused development
rights to developers building high-rise buildings fronting the
avenues.
Note, "Development Rights Transfer in New York City",
82 Yale L.J. at 361-362. However, the plan met strong resistance
from neighborhood residents and was defeated.
Id. at 362.
Critics feared that such a plan would change th character of the
neighborhood, endanger light to the midblock aréas, and
overburden the neighborhood's already crowded s bway line. Id.
at 365-367.
- 44 -
Accordingly, Mr. Friedberg's options for transferring the
unused development rights from the subject property were quite
limited.
Because his property was not a designated landmark, his
only option for transferring his unused development rights was
via a zoning lot merger.
Given. that all of the adjacent lots
were also within the boundaries of the Upper East Side Historic
District, owners of those properties were unlikely to be able to
use the unused development rights because any alteration of those
buildings would have required approval by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission, which must approve all alterations of
buildings within historic districts.
ch. 25, sec. 305(a) (1).
See N.Y. City Admin. Code,
However, we cannot conclude, as a matter
of law, that Mr. Friedberg was unable to transfer or otherwise
use the development rights.
Although any use of those
development rights would have been subject to the review of the
Landmarks Preservation Commission, it is not certain that the
Landmarks Preservation Commission would have blocked all use of
the development rights.
Rather, whether the development rights
could have been used is a disputed issue of material fact.
Accordingly, that issue is not ripe for summary judgment.
3.
The Market for Development Rights
Because of New York City's restrictions on transferring
development rights, the value of the development rights
associated with any given property is highly variable.
Whether
- 45 -
those development rights have any value depends upon the demand
for development rights in the immediate v1clnity of the property.
The New York Court of Appeals has described the difficulties of
selling development rights:
By compelling the owner to enter an unpredictable real
estate market to find a suitable receiving lot for the
rights, or a purchaser who would then share the same
interest in using additional development rights, the
amendment renders uncertain and thus severely impairs the
value of the development rights before they were severed.
Fred F. French Investing Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 350
N.E.2d 381,
388
(N.Y.
1976).
At least one New York court has
refused to allow a condemnation award with regard to the unused
development rights attached to a property becaµse valuing those
rights was "too speculative".
See In re New York State Urban
Dev. Corp.,
239
765 N.Y.S.2d 239,
(App. Div. 2003).
That court
considered whether there was any probability t at those
development rights would have been used in the reasonably near
future.
Id.
This Court has similarly required that, when
considering the highest and best use of property, only those uses
that are reasonably likely in the near future should be
considered.
Hilborn v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
t 689.
Respondent contends that Mr. Ehrmann's re ort fails to
address the probability that the unused development rights
attached to the subject property would be purchased in the near
future.
Respondent contends that without such an assessment, the
appraisal report is not a qualified appraisal.
Petitioners
contend that the Court may consider such issues in deciding how
much weight to accord the appraisal report but that those issues
are irrelevant to deciding whether the appraisal report counts as
a qualified appraisal.
The market for unused development rights in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property is an important factor in
determining the market price of those rights, and Mr. Ehrmann's
report acknowledged that the subject property's location would
influence the demand for those rights.
He made a downward
adjustment in his estimate of the price for the development
rights to account for the subject property's location in a
historic district, but he did not explain in any detail how he
estimated the appropriate adjustment or arrived at his conclusion
regarding the market demand for the development rights.
Whether
his report adequately assessed the market demand for those rights
is a disputed issue of material fact that we will not decide on
the parties' motions for partial summary judgment.
4.
Mr. Ehrmann's Appraisal of the Development Rights
Respondent contends that Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal of the
development rights was not a qualified appraisal within the
meaning of section 1.170A-13(c) (3) (ii), Income Tax Regs., and
that we should therefore sustain respondent's disallowance of
petitioners' deduction for the donation of those rights.
In his
appraisal report, Mr. Ehrmann sought to estimate a value for the
- 47 -
unused development rights associated with the subject property.
To do so, he located five transactions involving properties near
the subject property where development rights had been purchased
from neighboring properties.
However, his method of using those
comparable transactions to estimate the value of the unused
development rights on the subject property wasi inconsistent.
In
several cases, it contained mathematical errors and erroneous
assumptions.
With regard to two of the transactions he considered
comparable, Mr. Ehrmann erréd by using the price per square foot
of the development rights already attached to the land instead of
the price per square foot of the additional development rights
purchased.
For instance, his second comparable transaction
consisted of the purchase of a parcel, a purchàse of development
rights from an adjacent parcel, and the purchase of additional
development rights from inclusionary housing bånuses."
The
parcel, which had an FAR of 13.04 and a land area of 8,434 square
feet, was purchased for $25.1 million.
The price per square foot
for the floor area associated with the parcel
as therefore
$228.22.
million for 9,000
In addition, the purchaser paid $1.0
square feet of development rights and $2.04 mi lion for 17,000
"New 570ork
City's Inclusionary Housing Program grants
"bonus" floor area in exchange for the creation or preservation
of affordable housing units for low-income households. See New
York, N.Y., Zoning Resolution secs. 23-90 to - 62.
- 48 -
square feet of inclusionary housing bonus floor area.
The prices
per square foot for the development rights and the inclusionary
housing bonuses were both $120 per square foot.
However, Mr.
Ehrmann reported that the price per square foot for the entire
transaction was $228.36, which was actually the price per square
foot of the development rights attached to the parcel, not the
price per square foot for the additional floor area."
Ehrmann erred when he used $228.36.
Mr.
The comparable part of the
transaction was the purchase of the additional floor area, the
price for which was $120 per square foot.
Mr. Ehrmann made a similar error with regard to his fourth
comparable transaction.
That transaction included a land area of
11,815 square feet with an FAR of 18.1, plus an additional 78,496
square feet of development rights previously acquired from
adjacent parcels.
Although it is unclear how Mr. Ehrmann arrived
at a price per square foot of $101.27, it appears that he
calculated that price by dividing the total price of the
building, after it had been constructed using additional
development rights, by the development rights that came with the
parcel."
In other words, his calculation completely ignored the
"We presume Mr. Ehrmann meant to use the price per square
foot for floor area associated with the parcel, which we
calculate to be $228.22 but that his calculation was off because
of a minor rounding or transcription error.
"Carrying out that calculation yields a price per square
(continued...)
- 49 development rights acquired from adjacent parcels.
That number
is clearly an inaccurate measure of the price per square foot of
the development rights.
Mr. Ehrmann made a different error with
comparable transaction.
egard to his first
The building's zoning permitted an FAR
of 10.0 with a land area of 10,070 square feet, and the building
had acquired additional development rights from adjacent parcels
of 50,913 square feet and 40,272 square feet from inclusionary
housing bonuses.
The building therefore had a total of 191,885
square feet available.
Mr. Ehrmann·reported that the price per
square foot was $119.86.
It is unclear whether Mr. Ehrmann
understood what his reported price per square foot actually
represented because he wrote that the price pe
square foot
"noted above is applicable to the additional dëvelopment rights".
Reproducing Mr. Ehrmann's calculation shows th t the reported
price per square foot was actually the average price per square
foot for the entire building, nòt just the additional development
rights.
That calculation assumes the same price per square foot
for both the original parcel and the additionai development
rights.
Without further explanation, such an assumption is
unrealistic.
For instance, in his second comparable transaction,
"(...continued)
foot of $102.21, close to Mr. Ehrmann's $101.27. We assume the
numbers are slightly off because of rounding or transcription
errors made by Mr. Ehrmann.
- 50 -
there was more than a $100-per-square-foot difference between the
price per square foot for the additional development rights and
that for the rights associated with the original parcel."
The fifth comparable considered by Mr. Ehrmann was actually
two separate purchases of development rights from two different
sites:
One purchase of 24,000 square feet for $104.17 per square
foot and one purchase of 16,216 square feet for $291.13 per
square foot.
property.
Both of those purchases were used to develop one
Both sales would seem to be comparable to the type of
sale Mr. Ehrmann claims Mr. Friedberg would have been able to
make with the unused development rights on the subject property.
Inexplicably, instead of using each of the two sales as an
individual comparable, Mr. Ehrmann combined them and used their
weighted average of $179.83 as his fifth comparable sale."
Such
a calculation makes little sense."
"The reason the price per square foot for the development
rights associated with the land parcel will usually be higher
than the price per square foot for the additional development
rights is that the development rights associated with the land
parcel include the land itself, and the land is necessary to
actually build anything. The purchased development rights, also
known as "air rights", only allow the purchaser to build a bigger
building on the land already owned.
The weighted average is actually $179.56 per FAR foot.
assume Mr. Ehrmann's figure is different because of minor
rounding or transcription errors.
We
"Assuming that those sales were comparable to the
hypothetical sale of the unused development rights associated
with the subject property, Mr. Ehrmann should have simply used
(continued...)
- 51 -
Only Mr. Ehrmann's third comparable provided a reasonable
estimate of what development rights might sell for in the
neighborhood of the subject property.
His third comparable was
the sale of 42,048 square feet of development rights for $6
million, or $142.69 per square foot.
Using Mr. Ehrmann's numbers, he arrived aþ an average price
per square foot of $154.40.
He then discussed general
adjustments relating to time, location, number of square feet of
floor area, zoning, and landmark limitations.
He did not
specifically describe those adjustments but concluded that the
price per square foot of the unused development rights on the
subject property was $170 per square foot.
Mr. Ehrmann
multiplied $170 by the amount of the unused development rights he
calculated for the subject property.
That calculation gave him a
total value of $2,335,000.
Inexplicably, Mr. Ehrmann then added that amount to his
previously estimated before value of the subject property.
did not explain why it was proper to do so.
He
Unless all of the
comparable properties Mr. Ehrmann used to estimate a before value
for the subject property had zero unused development rights, a
(...continued)
the price per square foot of each of them as a separate
comparable transaction.
It was an error to average them.
If Mr.
Ehrmann had been using the sales as separate cdmparable
transactions, it would also have been inappropriate for him to
calculate a weighted average.
- 52 -
proposition that seems highly unlikely, the value of the unused
development rights would already have been reflected in the
market prices for those properties.
Therefore, Mr. Ehrmann's
estimate of the before value for the subject property, which was
based on the sales of those comparable properties, would have
also included the value of the development rights."
If the
development rights were worth $2,335,000, Mr. Ehrmann should have
subtracted that value from the before value, not added it."
Respondent contends that Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal of the
unused development rights associated with the subject property is
not a qualified appraisal because, inter alia, it failed to
include the method and specific basis for valuing the development
rights.
Petitioners contend that Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal used
"It is worth noting that the floor area of development
rights associated with a particular parcel is directly affected
by its zoning designation, which sets the FAR for that parcel
(i.e., a zoning designation with a higher FAR allots more floor
area of development rights to a given parcel).
If those
development rights can be used or sold, the floor area of
development rights associated with a given parcel will affect
that parcel's value.
That fact is inconsistent with Mr.
Ehrmann's assertion in his report that different zoning
designations would have no effect on the values of his chosen
comparable properties.
"Additionally, we note that separately appraising the
unused development rights and the facade easement may have
overstated the loss in value due to the conservation easement.
If it is true, as Mr. Ehrmann wrote in his report, that one of
the reasons facade easements decrease the values of eased
properties is that facade easements restrict the rights of owners
to develop those properties, then Mr. Ehrmann's calculations
would double count some of the loss in value because of the
restriction of the development rights.
- 53 -
the comparable sales method to value the development rights and
that he explained the basis for his valuation.
It is true that Mr. Ehrmann claimed to be applying the
comparable sales method and that he identified what purported to
be five comparable sales.
As noted above, because of some
erroneous assumptions and calculation errors, _many of Mr.
Ehrmann's comparable sales were not truly comparable.
Instead,
some of his prices per square foot reflected either prices per
square foot of properties that included no additional development
rights (his second and fourth comparable sales
or prices that
reflected an average price per square foot for both the
development rights attached to the property and additional
development rights (his first comparable sale)
Mr. Ehrmann
should have been comparing the purchase prices per square foot
for additional development rights."
"Mr. Ehrmann's errors are puzzling ïn light of the fact
that his report contained five purchases of de elopment rights
that would have been comparable to the potential sale of
development rights from the subject property, ýet he failed to
identify them as comparable. His report contained the following
five comparable purchases of development right :
The purchases
of development rights and inclusionary housing floor area that
were part of his second comparable, both of which were priced at
$120 per square foot; the purchases of development rights that
were part of his fifth comparable, which were priced at $104.17
and $291.13 per square foot; and the third co arable, priced at
$142.69. The average of those five purchases is $155.60 per
square foot. Or, excluding the $291.13 purchase, which is more
than twice the price of any of the other purchases and seems to
be an outlier, the average is $121.70 per square foot.
- 54 -
Despite its many errors, Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal of the
development rights explained the method of valuation and the
specific basis for the valuation.
His valuation was not merely a
mechanical application of some predetermined figure.
Accordingly, that portion of the appraisal report does not suffer
from the same fatal flaws as Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal of the
facade easement.
We therefore conclude that respondent is not
entitled to summary judgment with respect to the issue of whether
Mr. Ehrmann's appraisal of the development rights constituted a
qualified appraisal.
Because disputed issues of material fact
remain, we will also deny petitioners' motion for partial summary
judgment with respect to the same issue.
II.
Whether Petitioners Attached a Fully Completed Appraisal
Summary to Their Tax Return
Section 1.170A-13(c) (4) (ii), Income Tax Regs., lays out the
required contents of the appraisal summary, which include:
(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)
In the case of tangible property, a brief summary
of the overall physical condition of the property at the
time of the contribution;
(D) The manner of acquisition (e.g., purchase,
exchange, gift, or bequest) and the date of acquisition of
the property by the donor * * *
(E)
The cost or other basis of the property * * *
- 55 -
Respondent contends that petitioners' Form 8283 complied with
none of those requirements.
Respondent contends that because of
those omissions, the entire contribution should be disallowed.
Respondent cites three cases that he contends support his
argument .
Petitioners contend that they substantially complied with
the requirements in the regulations.
Additionally, they argue
that they were not required to provide informa ion about their
acquisition of or basis in the subject property because the
contribution was not a contribution of tangible property.
The Form 8283 attached to petitioners' return described the
subject property by providing its street address, described its
condition as "Historic Facade Conservation Easement", and
provided no information about Mr. Friedberg's
subject property.
cquisition of the
The Form 8283 does not, by itself, describe
the subject property in sufficient detail for
determine the nature of the contribution.
espondent to
Indèed, it does not
even mention the contribution of the unused development rights.
However, petitioners also attached to their tax return the
appraisal report completed by Mr. Ehrmann, which describes the
contributions of a facade easement and unused development. rights
in sufficient detail.
Petitioners contend that it is not
necessary that the appraisal summary reprise everything in the
appraisal; they contend it is sufficient if th
appraisal summary
enables respondent to identify the subject property in the
appraisal report, which it does.
Respondent contends that we have held that taxpayers are not
entitled.to charitable contribution deductions when they fail to
provide fully completed appraisal summaries.
However, in each of
the cases respondent cites, the taxpayers' failures to comply
with the regulations went significantly beyond the failure to
fully complete the appraisal summary.
118 T.C. 334
In Todd v. Commissioner,
(2002), the taxpayers did not provide a qualified
appraisal, did not provide an _appraisal summary, and failed to
keep the records required by the regulations.
In Hewitt v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. at 263, the taxpayers similarly did not
obtain a qualified appraisal and attached no appraisal summary to
their tax returns.
2007-368, affd.
Finally, in Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
364 Fed. Appx. 317
(9th Cir. 2009), we held that
the taxpayers were not entitled to charitable contribution
deductions where the Forms 8283 attached to their returns were
"in many respects either improperly or incompletely prepared",
the taxpayers did not establish that their accountant was a
qualified appraiser, they never produced some ·of the appraisal
reports, none of the appraisal reports were prepared or submitted
on time, and those appraisal reports that they did submit did not
adequately explain the appraisal methodology as required by the
regulations.
Accordingly, our holdings in those cases do not
- 57 -
support respondent's argument that petitioners are not entitled
to a charitable deduction solely because they submitted a Form
8283 that was partially incomplete.
In Bond v. Commissioner, 100
T.C. at 41-42, we held that because the Form 8283 the taxpayers
attached to their return provided all of the important facts
except for the qualifications of the appraiser, the taxpayers
substantially complied with the regulations despite their failure
to attach an appraisal report to their return.
In the instant
case, petitioners attached to their return an appraisal report
that contained all of the required information, but they failed
to fully complete the Form 8283 summarizing the contents of the
appraisal report.
If, as we held in Bond, a fully completed Form
8283 can excuse the failure to attach an appra sal report under
the doctrine of substantial compliance, then, a fortiori,
attaching a completed appraisal report may excyse the failure to
fully complete a Form 8283 under the. doctrine of substantial
compliance.
Consequently, we conclude that pe itioners
substantially complied with the requirements o
13(c) (4) (ii), Income Tax Regs.
section 1.170A-
Their minor omissions on the Form
8283 are not enough, by themselves, to disqualify the
contribution.
- 58 -
III. Whether the Purported Transfer of Unused Development Rights
Was a Valid Transfer Permitting a Deduction Pursuant to
Section 170(a) or Whether the Conservation Deed Otherwise
Restricted the Use of the Development Rights
Petitioners contend that Mr. Friedberg's donation of the
unused development rights is deductible pursuant to section
170(a) without regard to whether the donation was a qualified
conservation contribution pursuant to section 170(h).
Petitioners argue that Mr. Friedberg's unused development rights
are transferable under New York City law and that they are a
separate interest in real property.
Petitioners contend that Mr.
Friedberg transferred those development rights to NAT by the
conservation deed.
Respondent contends that the conservation deed signed by Mr.
Friedberg and NAT did not validly transfer to NAT the unused
development rights associated with the subject property or
otherwise restrict Mr. Friedberg's ability to use those rights.
Respondent's contention is based on the premise that development
rights in New York City can be transferred only pursuant to the
Zoning Resolution.
Respondent contends that even if Mr.
Friedberg did validly transfer unused development rights to NAT,
pursuant to the terms of the conservation deed, those rights were
extinguished upon transfer and are therefore worthless.
The conservation deed is ambiguous as to whether Mr.
Friedberg transferred the unused development rights to NAT or
merely restricted the use of those rights.
The conservation deed
- 59 -
states that, except as allowed by NAT,
"there shall be no use,
exercise or transfer by Grantor or Grantee of development rights
from or to the Property. "
It later states that "all current and
future development rights have been donated t
the Grantee for
the purpose of forever (i) removing such rights from the
Property,
(ii) extinguishing such rights, and (iii)· further
preventing the transfer or use of such rights."
For the reasons
explained below, we need not decide whether th
conservation deed
effectively transferred the unused development rights to NAT.
Petitioners contend that Mr . Friedberg' s donation of the
unused development rights is deductible under section 170(a)
regardless of whether that donation is a quali ied conservation
easement .
Their contention appears to be that even if the
donation served no conservation purpose, it was still the
contribution of something valuable and petitio ers should be
entitled to a deduction for the value of that gift.
Yet,
according to the terms of the conservation deed whereby
petitioners contend Mr. Friedberg contributed the unused
development rights, those development rights w re contributed for
the purpose of extinguishing those rights and
use or transfer them.
AT agreed not to
Accordingly, although the development
rights may have had some value before the transfer to NAT,
pursuant to the terms of that transfer those development rights
became worthless.
- 60 -
Pursuant to the regulations, the value of a charitable
contribution of property other than money is the fair market
value of the property at the time of contribution.
1(c) (1), Income Tax Regs.
Sec. 1.170A-
Petitioners appear to contend that the
value of such a contribution should be the fair market value at
the moment before contribution even if the terms of the
contribution itself make the property worthless upon
consummation.
We conclude that such an interpretation is
inconsistent with the regulations.
We conclude that, even if Mr.
Friedberg transferred the unused development rights to NAT
according to the terms of the conservation deed, the value of
those development rights was zero.
Consequently, unless Mr.
Friedberg's donation of the unused development rights served some
conservation purpose that permits it to qualify for a deduction
under section 170(h), petitioners are not entitled to a
deduction."
"Whether Mr. Friedberg's transfer or restriction of the
unused development rights served a conservation purpose is not an
issue raised in the parties' motions. Consequently, we need not
decide whether the instant case is distinguishable from Herman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-205, where we held that the
taxpayer's contribution of a conservation easement that
restricted the use of some of his unused development rights was
not a qualified conservation contribution because it did not
preserve a "historically important land area" or a "certified
historic structure" within the meaning of sec. 170(h) (4) (A) (iv).
- 61 -
In the alternative, petitioners contend that the
conservation deed restricted Mr. Friedberg's use of the unused
development rights.
Petitioners stated in their answers to
respondent's interrogatories that the conservation deed
transferred the development rights to NAT, not that- it restricted
those rights.
Respondent contends that petitioners should be
bound by their responses to interrogatories an
that therefore we
should not consider petitioners' alternative argument.
disagree.
We
Our interpretation of the conservation deed is not
bound by petitioners'
interpretation of that document.
Whether
or not the conservation deed effectively transferred the unused
development rights to NAT, it did restrict Mr . Friedberg' s use of
development rights associated with the subject property.
Mr. Friedberg granted a conservation easement to NAT.
At
common law, an easement is "a permanent right conferred by grant
or prescription, authorizing one landowner to do or maintain
something on the adjoining land of another, which, although a
benefit to the land of the former, and a burde
upon the land of
the latter, is not inconsistent with general ownership."
Trustees of Freeholders & Commonalty of the Town of Southampton
v. Jessup,
,
56 N.E.
538,
539
(N.Y.
1900) .
New York has enacted a
statute permitting the creation of conservation easements.
N.Y.
Enytl. Conserv. Law sec. 49-0305
(McKinney 2008) .
See
Pursuant
to the statute, a conservation easement may be breated or
- 62 conveyed by a written instrument that complies with New York's
statute of frauds.
(McKinney 2008).
Id.; N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law sec. 5-703
A conservation easement may be held by a not-
for-profit conservation organization and is of perpetual duration
unless otherwise provided in the instrument granting it.
Enytl. Conserv. Law sec. 49-0305.
N.Y.
The easement must be recorded
in the appropriate office, and it must provide an adequate legal
description of the property encumbered.
Id.
Conservation
easements are distinct from easements recognized at common law in
that conservation easements are statutorily excepted from many
defenses that might defeat common law easements.
Id.; Stonegate
Family Holdings, Inc. v. Revolutionary Trails, Inc., 900 N.Y.S.2d
494, 499 (App. Div. 2010).
For instance, conservation easements
need not be appurtenant to an interest in real property.
N.Y.
Enytl. Conserv. Law sec. 49-0305; Stonegate Family Holdings, Inc.
v. Revolutionary Trails, Inc., supra at 499.
Granting a conservation easement on a tract of land does- not
actually transfer ownership of the property, but it may
nonetheless restrict the grantee's use of it.
According to the
conservation deed, in addition to granting a facade easement on
the subject property, Mr. Friedberg gave up his right to any
future use or transfer of development rights.
The conservation
deed complied with New York's requirements for a valid
conservation easement.
Accordingly, we conclude that, by grant
- 63 -
of the conservation deed, Mr. Friedberg restricted the use of
development rights associated with the subject property.
Nonetheless, petitioners are not entitled to a deduction unless
the restriction of the unused development righ s served a
conservation purpose that permits it to qualify for a deduction
pursuant to section 170(h).
See 1982, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2011-84; Herman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
IV.
2009-205.
Whether the Donation of the Conservation Easement Was
Granted in Perpetuity
Respondent contends that Mr. Friedberg's contribution of the
conservation easement was not a qualified conservation
contribution because it was not granted in perpetuity.
Respondent's contention is based on the following language from
the conservation deed:
construed to limit * * *
"nothing herein contained shall be
[NAT's] right to give its consent (e.g.,
to changes in the Facade) or to abandon some or all of its rights
hereunder"
(abandonment clause).
Petitioners contend that
respondent's argument ignores prior decisions df this Court in
which we have held that deeds with similar language nonetheless
granted conservation easements in perpetuity.
A contribution will not be considered to be exclusively for
conservation purposes unless such purposes are "protected in
perpetuity"
(perpetuity requirement).
Sec. 170(h) (5) (A); see
also sec. 1.170A-14 (g) (1), Income Tax Regs.
Ho ever, the
regulations permit a deduction even if the deed allows some
- 64 -
future development as long as "the terms of the restrictions
require that such development conform with appropriate local,
state, or Federal standards for construction or rehabilitation
within the district."
Sec. 1.170A-14 (d) (5), Income Tax Regs.
In Simmons v. Commissioner, 646 F.3d 6
(D.C. Cir.
2011),
affg. T.C. Memo. 2009-208, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit considered whether language identical to the
abandonment clause violated the perpetuity requirement.
The
Court of Appeals rejected the Commissioner's argument that such
language violates the perpetuity requirement.
It noted that the
deeds imposed obligations upon the taxpayer "in perpetuity".
at 10.
Id.
It also noted that the terms of the deeds stated that
they would "survive any termination of the Grantor's or Grantee's
existence."
Although the deeds did not specify what would happen
if the donee organization dissolved, the Court of Appeals found
it sufficient that District of Columbia law provides that such
easements would be transferred to another organization performing
similar activities.
Similarly, Mr. Friedberg's conservation deed imposes
obligations in perpetuity and states that the easement will
surv1ve any termination of the grantor's or grantee's existence.
The conservation deed also states that NAT may not transfer the
easement except to another "'qualified organization' described in
Section 170(h) (3)".
New York State law provides that a
conservation easement held by a not-for-profit organization may
be modified or extinguished only:
"(a) as pro ided in the
instrument creating the easement; or (b) in a proceeding pursuant
to section nineteen hundred fifty-one of the r al property
actions and proceedings law; or (c) upon the exercise of the
power of eminent domain."
(McKinney 2008).
N.Y.. Enytl. Conserv. Law sec. 49-0307
A New York court could permi: abandonment of a
conservation easement only if it found "no actual and substantial
benefit * * * either because the purpose of the. restriction has
already been accomplished or, by reason of changed conditions or
other cause., its purpose is not capable of accomplishment, or for
any other reason."
(McKinney 2009).
N.Y. Real. Prop. Acts. Law sec. 1951
We conclude that the terms of the conservation
deed, combined with the New York State law governing conservation
easements, do not violate the perpetuity requirement of section
170(h) (5) (A).
However, the Court of Appeals in Simmons also considered a
factual issue:
the remoteness of the possibil ty that the donee
would actually abandon its rights.
Even thoug
the conservation
easement might be protected by the terms of the conservation deed
and even by State law, it is nonetheless essential that the donee
actively monitor the property and enforce any violations of the
terms of the easement.
In Simmons v. Commissioner, supra at 10,
the Court of Appeals stated that "the Commissio'ner has not shown
the possibility L'Enfant [the donee] will actually abandon its
rights is more than negligible."
The Court of Appeals noted that
L'Enfant has been holding and monitoring easements since 1978,
yet the Commissioner had failed to point to a single instance
where L'Enfant had abandoned its right to enforce those
easements.
Id.
Similarly, in Stotler v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-275, this Court rejected the Commissioner's argument
that the contribution failed the perpetuity requirement because
we concluded that the possibility the donee would abandon the
conservation easement was "so remote as to be negligible".
As in
Simmons, our decision in Stotler was based in part on facts in
the record that allowed us to conclude that the possibility of
abandonment was remote.
In the instant case, the parties have not addressed NAT's
history of enforcing easements, and there is nothing in the
record that would allow us to consider the likelihood that NAT
would abandon the easement.
Accordingly, although we hold the
abandonment clause does not violate the perpetuity requirement,
we do not decide whether the possibility that NAT would abandon
the conservation easement is "so remote as to be negligible".
We conclude that respondent is entitled to summary judgment
on the issue of whether petitioners submitted a qualified
appraisal with respect to the facade easement.
Consequently, we
.hold that petitioners are not entitled to a charitable
contribution deduction with respect to the facade easement.
We
further conclude that petitioners are entitled to summary
judgment on the issues of whether their appraisal report
substantially complied with section 1.170A-13 (c) (3) (ii) (C) ,
(H) ,
and (I) , Income Tax Regs . , whether their appraisal summary
substantially complied with section 1.170A-13( ) (4) (ii), Income
Tax Regs., and whether the conservation deed restricted Mr.
Friedberg' s use of the unused development rights .
With respect
to the remaining issues, including the issue of whether
petitioners submitted with their return a qualified appraisal
with respect to the development rights, we conclude that there
are disputed issues of material fact and we wi l deny the
parties' motions for partial summary judgment .
In reaching.these holdings, we have consicered all the
parties' arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we
conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit .
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be
issued.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.