<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Preservation Law Digest</title>
	
	<link>http://preservationlawdigest.com</link>
	<description>Developments in Preservation and Conservation Law for Historic, Natural and Farm Places</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 13:51:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/PreservationLawDigest" /><feedburner:info uri="preservationlawdigest" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>PreservationLawDigest</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
		<title>Dunlap v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/0_fMn6bbk0M/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/05/03/dunlap-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 13:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historic district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified conservation contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax deduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=848</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;U.S. Tax Court, T.C. Memo, 2012-126, May 1, 2012: Tax Court finds taxpayers’ appraisals not credible to rebut IRS appraisal, resulting in zero value for tax deduction purposes to historic preservation easement to NAT. Deductions were allowed for “required” cash contributions and accuracy-related penalties were disallowed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The unit owners of a condominium building (Cobblestone) in a New [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/0_fMn6bbk0M" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/05/03/dunlap-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/05/03/dunlap-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Detroit Historic District Commission</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/S6uwHLPkwH4/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/26/city-of-grosse-pointe-park-v-detroit-historic-district-commission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:29:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Demolition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demolition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historic district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=844</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Mich. Court of Appeals, No. 298802, April 19, 2012 (unpublished): A state historic preservation review board to deny demolition approval was reasonable where the board found expert testimony supporting demolition to be unconvincing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The City of Grosse Pointe Park (GPP) sought to demolish two buildings built in 1918-20 that it owns in Detroit. The demolition required City [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/S6uwHLPkwH4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/26/city-of-grosse-pointe-park-v-detroit-historic-district-commission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/26/city-of-grosse-pointe-park-v-detroit-historic-district-commission/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Bronowiski Mulligan Irrevocable Trust v Bridges</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/fXyHmDY-dLU/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/16/bronowiski-mulligan-irrevocable-trust-v-bridges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national register]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rhode Island]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=840</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;RI Supreme Court, No. 2011-20-Appeal, (PC 06-4651), April 10, 2012: Landlord should be awarded cost of repair for tenant’s damage to wallpaper of restored historic house, plus attorney’s fees, based on unambiguous wording of lease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The plaintiff landlord alleged that the defendant tenant breached his lease agreement by painting over expensive historical wallpaper inside the landlord’s restored [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/fXyHmDY-dLU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/16/bronowiski-mulligan-irrevocable-trust-v-bridges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/16/bronowiski-mulligan-irrevocable-trust-v-bridges/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitchell v. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/jsVIATLWZnQ/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/08/mitchell-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 01:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified conservation contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax deduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=837</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;US Tax Court, 138 T.C. No. 16, April 3, 2012: The so-remote-as-to-be-negligible standard of Treasury Regulations cannot be used to excuse the failure to comply with a particular requirement of Treasury Regulations for a qualified conservation contribution. In this case, the taxpayer failed to obtain a subordination of a mortgage to a qualified conservation contribution at [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/jsVIATLWZnQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/08/mitchell-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/04/08/mitchell-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>New Albany Historic Preservation Commission v Bradford Realty</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/O08qgTw7Jl8/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/29/new-albany-historic-preservation-commission-v-bradford-realty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historic district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indiana]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=833</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Ind. Court Of Appeals, No. 22A01-1108-PL-365, March 22, 2012: Owner in historic district not entitled to actual notice of potential designation of district; replacement of original wood siding with vinyl siding is “conspicuous change” requiring Certificate of Appropriateness; designation was not inverse condemnation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The New Albany Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the City of New Albany (collectively, [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/O08qgTw7Jl8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/29/new-albany-historic-preservation-commission-v-bradford-realty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/29/new-albany-historic-preservation-commission-v-bradford-realty/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>BUTLER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/0hsMRj4DUVs/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/22/butler-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified conservation contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax deduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=830</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;United States Tax Court, T.C. Memo. 2012-72, March 19, 2012: Where taxpayer presented credible evidence that reserved rights were not inconsistent with conservation purposes and IRS presented none to contrary, taxpayer satisfies burden of proof despite sparse record; state law determines whether unrecorded baseline documents may be incorporated by reference in conservation easement; appraisal revised by [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/0hsMRj4DUVs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/22/butler-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/22/butler-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>KOWALCHIK v. BROHL (Brohl II)</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/_W0T9bIENR4/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/20/kowalchik-v-brohl-brohl-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax credit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=826</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division A, No. 11CA2634, March 15, 2012: Resolution of litigation regarding Colorado conservation easement tax credits between Dept. of Revenue and the original donor of the easement as tax matters representative is binding on transferees of the CE credits; transferees are not necessary parties to such disputes and need not be [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/_W0T9bIENR4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/20/kowalchik-v-brohl-brohl-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/20/kowalchik-v-brohl-brohl-ii/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>STOCKPORT MOUNTAIN CORPORATION LLC v. NORCROSS WILDLIFE FOUNDATION</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/z9dOM31aRJE/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/08/stockport-mountain-corporation-llc-v-norcross-wildlife-foundation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:08:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Laws + Regs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=824</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;US District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania, No. 3:11cv514, March 1, 2012: Finding that conservation easement’s purposes and its prohibition on industrial or commercial uses of any kind are made ambiguous by uses allowed by the easement, and therefore the easement does not necessarily prohibit natural gas drilling, denies motion for summary judgment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Plaintiff Stockport Mountain Corporation LLC (Stockport) [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/z9dOM31aRJE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/08/stockport-mountain-corporation-llc-v-norcross-wildlife-foundation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/08/stockport-mountain-corporation-llc-v-norcross-wildlife-foundation/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Morosco v. Historic Review Commission of Pittsburgh</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/_NdDVzlqI08/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/06/morosco-v-historic-review-commission-of-pittsburgh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Demolition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demolition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=822</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2106 C.D. 2010, February 24, 2012: An individual without any particular harm beyond the common interest lacks standing under PA law to appeal Pittsburgh historical commission’s decision allowing demolition of a historical building. Unreported opinion.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission (HRC) granted a Certificate of Appropriateness allowing demolition of an historic building [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/_NdDVzlqI08" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/06/morosco-v-historic-review-commission-of-pittsburgh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/03/06/morosco-v-historic-review-commission-of-pittsburgh/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Cohan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/lmLJVBt17NY/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/20/cohan-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified conservation contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax deduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=819</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;US Tax Court, T.C. Memo. 2012-8, Jan. 10, 2012: A charitable organization’s contribution acknowledgment letter that omitted items of value the taxpayer received in consideration was not a valid acknowledgment letter, the taxpayer did not act reasonably in relying on the letter, and therefore the taxpayer could not take a deduction for the contribution.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A taxpayer-donor claiming [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/lmLJVBt17NY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/20/cohan-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/20/cohan-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss><!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->

