- 41 -
We conclude that petitioners’ contributions meet the
“exclusively for conservation purposes” requirement of section
170(h)(5). The contributee, LTC, is a legitimate, longstanding
nature conservancy dealing at arm’s length with petitioners, and
LTC has agreed (and has the commitment and financial resources)
to enforce the preservation-related restrictions included in deed
1 and deed 2 in perpetuity. LTC’s holding of the conservation
easements also is directly related to its tax-exempt purposes.
We also note that petitioners through the restrictions in deed 1
and deed 2 have gratuitously surrendered valuable property rights
in the encumbered shoreline, that those restrictions are legally
enforceable to limit in perpetuity any inconsistent use of the
encumbered shoreline, and that any subsequent holder of the
conservation easements must be an entity fully committed to
carrying out the contributions’ charitable purposes. Congress
through the enactment of section 170(h) intended in relevant part
to encourage preservation of our country’s natural resources
through the contribution of easements such as the conservation
easements, see S. Rept. 96-1007, supra at 9, 1980-2 C.B. at 603,
and petitioners’ contributions of the conservation easements,
which serve to preserve this Nation’s natural resources of bald
eagles, Lake Huron tansy, and the bluff, among other things, are
consistent with the statute’s objective.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011