- 26 -
Special Use Permit
In conjunction with the transfer of the Property, petitioner
received a Special Use Permit from the Commonwealth that allowed
him to continue to grow and harvest hay on a 22.5-acre portion of
the Property. As a result, respondent contends that the fair
market value of the Property should be diminished by the value of
the Special Use Permit in order to reflect accurately the value
of what was transferred. Rather than present evidence that would
demonstrate the value of the Special Use Permit, respondent
appears to argue that the value of the Special Use Permit is the
difference between the value of the Property and the cash
received from the Commonwealth. For instance, even though
respondent's own expert increased his valuation of the Property
from $7.5 million to $8.3 million, respondent still does not
concede that petitioner is entitled to any charitable deduction.
The evidence presented by petitioner, however, suggests that
the Special Use Permit had little or no value. Indeed,
petitioner testified that it cost him more to grow and harvest
the hay on this land than the hay was actually worth. In
addition, the Commonwealth had the power to terminate the Special
Use Permit at any time and for any reason. We find that the
21(...continued)
percent in the second phase.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011