- 3 -
easement 1 and conservation easement 2) were qualified
conservation contributions under section 170(h)(1).2 We hold
they were. Petitioners claimed on their 1992 and 1993 Federal
income tax returns (1992 return and 1993 return, respectively)
that their contributions of the conservation easements were
qualified conservation contributions. As further support for his
disallowance of those claims, respondent in his posttrial brief
argues for the first time that petitioners have not proven that
they met the “contemporaneous written acknowledgment” requirement
of section 170(f)(8). We consider this position to have been
advanced untimely and do not decide it. See Leahy v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 56, 64-65 (1986).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Background
Some facts were stipulated. We incorporate herein by this
reference the parties’ stipulation of facts and the exhibits
submitted therewith. We find the stipulated facts accordingly.
Petitioners are husband and wife, and they filed a joint Federal
income tax return for each relevant year. They resided in Emmet
County, Michigan (Emmet County), when their petition was filed.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code applicable to the relevant years, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The relevant provisions of sec. 170(h) are set forth in an
appendix to this Opinion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011