<?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>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:18:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</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>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>
		<item>
		<title>Long Green Valley Ass’n v Bellevale Farms, Inc. Revised</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/DnRT-vOdkdw/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/15/long-green-valley-assn-v-bellevale-farms-inc-revised/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:08:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Farm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agricultural easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=813</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Maryland Court of Special Appeals, No. 0228, February 14, 2012: Revised decision holds the purchased non-perpetual agricultural preservation easement at issue does not create charitable trust in Maryland, but abutter has rebuttable presumption that it has standing to bring mandamus action regarding enforcement of the easement by a state entity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The decision issued February 14, 2012, revises [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/DnRT-vOdkdw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/15/long-green-valley-assn-v-bellevale-farms-inc-revised/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/15/long-green-valley-assn-v-bellevale-farms-inc-revised/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Rolfs v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue II</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/LL49lpeC4pM/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/14/rolfs-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax deduction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=811</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, No. 11-2078, February 8, 2012: Upholds the Tax Court decision that value of house donated to fire department on condition it be destroyed did not exceed the fair market value of the benefit the taxpayer received in return by house’s destruction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The opinion upholds the decision of the Tax Court in [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/LL49lpeC4pM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/14/rolfs-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/14/rolfs-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ii/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>ESGAR CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/SUVXwAAsC9g/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/esgar-corporation-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:58:25 +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[appraisal]]></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=809</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;US Tax Court, 2012 TC Memo 35, February 6, 2012: Determines fair market value of conservation easement by analyzing highest and best use and comparable sales, rejecting taxpayers’ claim that highest and best use was other than the properties’ present use.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At issue was the value of property before donation of conservation easements donated as qualified conservation [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/SUVXwAAsC9g" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/esgar-corporation-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/esgar-corporation-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>City of Jersey City v. Consolidated Rail Corporation</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/SpupCRFzcQs/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/city-of-jersey-city-v-consolidated-rail-corporation-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:58:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Demolition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demolition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=806</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;U.S. Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit, No. 10-7135 February 3, 2012: Holds that City has standing in federal court to challenge Conrail sale of historic structure formerly used for rail purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conrail sold a six-block, half-mile long stone structure it owns “in the heart of Jersey City&amp;#8217;s historic downtown” (Harsimus Embankment) to developers. The State [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/SpupCRFzcQs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/city-of-jersey-city-v-consolidated-rail-corporation-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/city-of-jersey-city-v-consolidated-rail-corporation-2/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>KOWALCHIK v. BROHL</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/xFYKxjJVl_8/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/kowalchik-v-brohl/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<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=802</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Colo. Court of Appeals, Div. A, No. 11CA2634, February 2, 2012: Grants request for interlocutory appeal of four issues of law of first impression in Colorado regarding tax treatment of purchase of conservation easement tax credits. A later opinion will address the merits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the case at trial, the plaintiffs collectively donated fourteen conservation easements over two [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/xFYKxjJVl_8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/kowalchik-v-brohl/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/02/13/kowalchik-v-brohl/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Montgomery Preservation, Inc. v Montgomery County Planning Board of Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/ElAu14Q4Qwo/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/01/30/montgomery-preservation-inc-v-montgomery-county-planning-board-of-maryland-national-capital-park-and-planning-commission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Historic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historic district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandamus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=797</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 36, September Term, 2011, Jan. 24, 2012: Holds that a county Planning Board&amp;#8217;s recommendation to the county Council against including a certain building in the county’s Master Plan for Historic Preservation did not become a “final appealable administrative agency decision” suitable for judicial review on a mandamus action when the [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/ElAu14Q4Qwo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/01/30/montgomery-preservation-inc-v-montgomery-county-planning-board-of-maryland-national-capital-park-and-planning-commission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/01/30/montgomery-preservation-inc-v-montgomery-county-planning-board-of-maryland-national-capital-park-and-planning-commission/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Carpenter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/4inYswQHFbs/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/01/05/carpenter-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 02:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></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=793</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;US Tax Court, T.C. Memo. 2012-1, January 3, 2012: Colorado conservation easement extinguishable by mutual consent of the parties does not guarantee protection in perpetuity under state law as required by Internal Revenue Code.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Petitioners (Carpenter) sought a federal qualified conservation contribution tax deduction for a conservation easement granted to a charitable nonprofit that the IRS agreed [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/4inYswQHFbs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/01/05/carpenter-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2012/01/05/carpenter-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Long Green Valley Ass’n v Bellevale Farms, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/8lUiGVtSiac/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2011/12/03/long-green-valley-assn-v-bellevale-farms-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Farm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agricultural easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preservationlawdigest.com/?p=788</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The Court&amp;#8217;s opinion in this case was revised on February 14, 2012. A revised Digest post discussing the decision is [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/8lUiGVtSiac" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2011/12/03/long-green-valley-assn-v-bellevale-farms-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2011/12/03/long-green-valley-assn-v-bellevale-farms-inc/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS: Easement Audit Techniques Guide</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~3/ykkIw_v3m7M/</link>
		<comments>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2011/11/28/irs-easement-audit-techniques-guide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Laws + Regs]]></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=783</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The Internal Revenue Service publishes a &amp;#8220;Conservation Easement Audit Techniques Guide&amp;#8221; online at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=249135,00.html#_Toc223. The publication was last revised September 30, 2011, and last reviewed by the IRS November 22, 2011. The Guide begins with a table of contents in hypertext linked to the chapters of the Guide, reproduced below. In addition to summaries of the many requirements of [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PreservationLawDigest/~4/ykkIw_v3m7M" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2011/11/28/irs-easement-audit-techniques-guide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://preservationlawdigest.com/2011/11/28/irs-easement-audit-techniques-guide/</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! -->

