- 28 -
the bluff on the encumbered shoreline. Petitioners conclude that
the conservation easements: (1) Protect a relatively natural
habitat for wildlife and plants, (2) preserve open space for the
scenic enjoyment of the general public, which will yield a
significant public benefit, and (3) preserve open space pursuant
to clearly delineated public policies set forth in the Emmet
County zoning ordinances and in the Endangered Species Act of
1973, Pub. L. 93-205, sec. 2(b), 87 Stat. 884, current version at
16 U.S.C. sec. 1531(b) (2000), which will yield a significant
public benefit. Respondent argues that petitioners have not
proven that the conservation easements did any of those things.
Respondent concludes, argues, and determined that the
conservation easements are not qualified conservation
contributions under section 170(h)(1).
Respondent’s deficiency determination is presumed correct,
and petitioners must prove it wrong in order to prevail.14
Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioners must prove their entitlement to deduct their claimed
14 In certain cases, if an individual introduces credible
evidence with respect to a factual issue relevant to ascertaining
his or her proper tax liability, sec. 7491 places the burden of
proof on the Commissioner as to that issue. See sec. 7491(a);
Rule 142(a)(2). Sec. 7491 applies to court cases arising in
connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998. See
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(c)(2), 112 Stat. 726. Because the
examination underlying this case commenced before July 23, 1998,
sec. 7491(a) does not apply to shift the burden of proof to
respondent.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011