- 19 -
Respondent determined that petitioners were not entitled to the
contribution deduction. If we decide that there was a qualified
conservation easement, then we must decide its value in order to
arrive at the amount of the deduction to which petitioners are
entitled. Respondent contends that petitioners have failed to
show that their donation satisfies the statutory definition and
requirements for a conservation easement deduction. In that
regard, respondent contends that there were defects in the
conservation easement deed and petitioners’ Form 8283 (attached
to their return) and no acceptance of the deed or an easement by
Fairfax County (the donee named by petitioners). Alternatively,
if the Court decides that there was a valid donation, respondent
contends that the Grist Mill property was developed according to
its highest and best use, and there was, therefore, nothing
remaining to contribute as a conservation easement.
Petitioners contend that they have either complied or
substantially complied with the reporting requirements for a
conservation easement deduction. They also contend that the
Grist Mill property had the potential for additional development
and that such potential was foregone to preserve the historic
nature of the surrounding properties. If we decide that there
was no contribution of a qualified conservation easement, we must
then decide whether petitioners are subject to an accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662. The grounds underlying
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011