- 23 -
requirements. We accordingly begin our discussion of the third
requirement by considering those two aspects.9
b. Satisfaction of the Third Requirement
In Glass v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 258, 278-284 (2005),
which also involved the contribution of a conservation easement,
this Court considered the requirement that a contribution be made
exclusively for conservation purposes. The discussion in that
case, however, was directed to whether the taxpayer satisfied the
natural habitat requirement. That discussion, accordingly, did
not focus on the requirements we consider here.10 Accordingly,
we proceed to consider and analyze the two elements in dispute in
this case.
(1) Open Space Requirement
Petitioners allege that they satisfy the open space
requirement of section 170(h). Satisfaction of this requirement
requires both the preservation of open space and the inurement of
a significant public benefit. Sec. 170(h)(4)(A)(iii). The
9Because we ultimately hold that petitioners have not
satisfied the third requirement, there is no need to consider the
first requirement or the easement’s value.
10In addition, because we hold that petitioners do not
satisfy either the open space or the historic preservation
requirement, we need not consider whether the contribution was
“exclusively” for conservation purposes, as we did in Glass v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 258, 278-284 (2005).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011