Zarlengo v. Comm'r

T.C. Memo. 2014-161

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

MARCO ZARLENGO AND LINDA MCMAHON-ZARLENGO, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

MERILYN H. SANDIN-ZARLENGO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket Nos. 3701-10, 26747-10. Filed August 11, 2014.

Z and then spouse S sought to contribute a facade conservation
easement on their property to the National Architectural Trust (Trust).
Z and S obtained an appraisal claiming the value of the conservation
easement to be $660,000 as of July 26, 2004. On or before
September 22, 2004, Z, S, and the Trust all signed a conservation
deed of easement. However, the deed was not recorded until January
26, 2005.

Z and S each claimed a charitable contribution deduction of
$330,000 for the conservation easement on their separately filed 2004
tax returns. Because of applicable gross income limitations on
charitable contribution deductions, see I.R.C. sec. 170(b)(1)(B), Z
and S were able to use only part of the deduction for 2004 and they
carried the excess forward. R issued a notice of deficiency to Z for
 -2-

[*2] 2004 and a notice of deficiency to S for 2005-07 disallowing the
charitable contribution deductions.

Held: The conservation easement was not protected in
perpetuity until January 26, 2005.

Held, further, Z is not entitled to a deduction for the
conservation easement for 2004.

Held, further, S substantially complied with the substantiation
requirements with respect to the conservation easement,
notwithstanding the premature nature of the appraisal.

Held, further, the fair market value of the conservation
easement is $157,500 as of January 26, 2005. S is entitled to a
deduction of $78,750 for 2005.

Held, further, Z and S meet the reasonable cause and good faith
exception to the accuracy-related penalties for 2004 and 2005,
respectively.

Held, further, S is liable for gross valuation misstatement
penalties for 2006 and 2007.

Frank Agostino, Jairo G. Cano, and Jeremy M. Klausner, for petitioners.

Marc L. Caine and Eliezer Klein, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: The issues for decision in these consolidated cases are

(1) whether petitioners are entitled to noncash charitable contribution deductions
 -3-

[*3] under section 170 with respect to the donation of a facade conservation

easement (conservation easement) to the National Architectural Trust (Trust) and

(2) whether petitioners are liable for accuracy-related penalties under section

6662(h) or (a).1

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of

facts and accompanying exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the

time they filed the petitions, petitioners resided in New York.

On October 7, 1975, petitioners Marco Zarlengo and Merilyn H.

Sandin-Zarlengo purchased a four-story townhouse (townhouse) at 309 West 80th

Street on the Upper West Side of Manhattan for $150,000.2 The townhouse had

been built in the 1890s and, like many of the other townhouses in the

neighborhood, was in dire need of repair. Petitioners undertook a complete

restoration of the townhouse using materials designed to preserve its historic

character. Their neighbors soon followed suit.

1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2
Linda McMahon-Zarlengo is a party to this case by virtue of having filed
a joint return with Marco Zarlengo for 2004. All references hereafter to
petitioners are to Marco Zarlengo and Merilyn H. Sandin-Zarlengo.
 -4-

[*4] I. The Landmarks Preservation Commission

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) took

notice. One of the functions of the LPC is to identify new potential historic

districts and landmarks. On March 26, 1985, the LPC designated petitioners’

neighborhood as the “Riverside Drive - West 80th-81st Street Historic District”

(Riverside Historic District). As a result of this designation, the townhouse fell

under the LPC’s jurisdiction.

The primary function of the LPC is to regulate historic districts and

landmarks under its jurisdiction. The LPC does this through two sets of

regulations--the administrative code (LPC code) and the Rules of the City of New

York (LPC rules). The LPC code is for the most part static, while the LPC rules

change approximately every two years.

The normal standard of maintenance for a building under the LPC’s

jurisdiction is “good repair”. This means that significant architectural features of

the building must be kept intact. It does not mean that the building must be kept

in pristine condition. Certain buildings are subject to a heightened standard of

maintenance known as “sound first class condition”. An owner of a building will

typically receive a special zoning permit in exchange for agreeing to restore and
 -5-

[*5] maintain a building in sound first class condition. The townhouse is subject

to the good repair standard.

The LPC does not actively monitor buildings subject to the good repair

standard. The LPC instead relies on the local community to report violations of

the LPC rules directly to the LPC. The LPC has three or four employees dedicated

to enforcement. The LPC has the authority to issue a “stop work order” to a

building owner who is doing work without a permit, and it may impose sanctions,

including fines, for violations of the LPC rules. The LPC does not have the right

to enter a building subject to the good repair standard in order to correct a

violation, but it may seek a court order compelling a building owner to make

necessary repairs.

II. The Trust

On February 3, 1999, petitioners divorced. Dr. Zarlengo moved out of the

townhouse, but he and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo each retained an interest in the

townhouse. Sometime after the divorce, Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo learned about the

Trust from her neighbors. The Trust is a nonprofit organization whose mission is

to “preserve historic architecture in the United States”. The Trust advances its

mission primarily through acquiring conservation easements on historic
 -6-

[*6] properties.3 Unlike the LPC, the Trust actively monitors all of the properties

on which it owns an easement through annual inspections. The Trust evaluates

proposed changes to easement-encumbered properties using the standards

promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, see 36 C.F.R. Part 67, and has a

variety of potential legal options should the terms of one of its easements be

violated.

Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo believed that donating a conservation easement on the

townhouse to the Trust was a great way to support conservation on a national

level. She brought the idea to Dr. Zarlengo’s attention. He, too, was intrigued by

the idea. After meeting with a representative of the Trust, petitioners decided to

move forward with the donation.

On March 11, 2004, petitioners submitted to the Trust a document titled

“Facade Conservation Easement Application”. Petitioners stated the estimated fair

market value of the townhouse as $5.5 million on the document. On June 30,

2004, the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, certified that the

townhouse “contributes to the significance of the * * * [Riverside Historic

District] and is a ‘certified historic structure’ for a charitable contribution for

3
The Trust also engages in educational outreach and gives grants to other
nonprofit organizations with similar missions.
 -7-

[*7] conservation purposes in accordance with the Tax Treatment Extension Act

of 1980.”

On July 12, 2004, the Trust sent petitioners a letter stating that the Trust had

received all necessary approvals to complete petitioners’ application to donate the

conservation easement. The letter directed petitioners to obtain an appraisal of the

conservation easement. The Trust enclosed with the letter a list of qualified

appraisers in petitioners’ area.

Petitioners selected Jerome Haims of Jerome Haims Realty, Inc., to appraise

the conservation easement. Mr. Haims is a certified real estate general appraiser in

New York. He determined the “market value” of the townhouse to be $6 million

as of July 26, 2004. He then applied an 11% diminution to the market value of the

townhouse to arrive at a value of $660,000 for the conservation easement.

Mr. Haims prepared an appraisal report dated August 24, 2004, with an

effective date of July 26, 2004 (appraisal report). Jean Hao, an employee of Mr.

Haims’ company, performed a physical inspection of the townhouse and assisted

Mr. Haims in the preparation of the appraisal report. The appraisal report includes

a detailed description of the townhouse complete with photographs of its interior,

exterior, and surroundings. The appraisal report states that its intended use “is to

assist our client [Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo] in determining the Federal tax benefits
 -8-

[*8] resulting from the creation of the subject’s [townhouse’s] historic

preservation easement.” Mr. Haims attached a copy of a “Conservation Deed of

Easement” (sample deed) to the appraisal report. The sample deed was the

standard deed that the Trust used at the time. It had a few blank lines for a donor’s

personal information.

On or about August 24, 2004, Mr. Haims provided Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo

with a copy of the appraisal report. Also on August 24, Mr. Haims sent the Trust a

copy of the appraisal report and a Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions

(appraisal summary). On part 1 of the appraisal summary, Information on Donated

Property, Mr. Haims checked the box for “Real Estate” in response to the inquiry

“Check type of property”. He described the property as “309 West 80th Street”

and as a “Historic Preservation Easement”. He listed the appraised fair market

value of the property as $660,000. He signed part 3 of the appraisal summary,

Declaration of Appraiser, under penalties of perjury and listed the date of his

appraisal as July 26, 2004.

On August 31, 2004, the Trust sent petitioners a letter stating that it had

received a copy of the appraisal report. The Trust enclosed with the letter a

number of documents, including a “Conservation Deed of Easement”

(conservation deed). The enclosed conservation deed was identical in all material
 -9-

[*9] respects to the sample deed that Mr. Haims had attached to the appraisal

report, except for the fact that the blanks had been filled in with information

pertaining to petitioners’ donation (i.e., petitioners’ names, the address of the

townhouse, the identification of the Riverside Historic District, etc.). The Trust

requested that petitioners execute and return the enclosed documents on or before

September 17, 2004,4 and provide a check to the Trust for the remainder of their

agreed-upon cash donation.5

On September 10, 2004, petitioners signed the conservation deed and had it

notarized. On September 22, 2004, a duly authorized representative of the Trust

signed the conservation deed on behalf of the Trust. That same day the Trust

completed part 4 of the appraisal summary, Donee Acknowledgment. On

December 10, 2004, the Trust mailed petitioners a letter thanking them for their

cash donation and their donation of the conservation easement. The Trust

4
The letter specifically stated: “Please note that your easement donation
must be closed within sixty days of the date of your appraisal, which is dated July
26, 2004. Therefore, the executed documents listed above must be received by the
Trust on or before September 17, 2004.”
5
The Trust generally requires that easement donors make a cash
contribution of approximately 10% of the value of an easement. The Trust uses
the cash contributions to fund its operating expenses.
 - 10 -

[*10] enclosed the completed appraisal summary with the letter.6 The letter stated

in pertinent part:

Enclosed is a copy of IRS Form 8283 executed by the appraiser
and the Trust. This Form is to be included in your income tax
submission for the year 2004. Please keep it in a safe and readily
available place so that you can provide it to the person who prepares
your taxes.

Once your recorded deed is returned to our office, we will
forward a copy to you for your records. We very much enjoyed
working with you and once again, thank you for your generous gifts.

On January 26, 2005, the New York City Department of Finance, Office of the

City Register, recorded and filed the conservation deed.

III. Sale of the Townhouse

On June 12, 2003, petitioners entered into an agreement with Leslie J.

Garfield & Co., Inc. Real Estate (Leslie J. Garfield) to list the townhouse for sale.

Dr. Zarlengo was no longer living in the townhouse at the time, but he continued

to pay between $10,000 and $11,000 per month to maintain the townhouse. His

motivation in selling the townhouse was to eliminate this monthly expense and to

provide for his and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s retirement. Richard Pretsfelder, a

broker with Leslie J. Garfield, was petitioners’ agent.

6
The appraisal summary has four parts. Mr. Haims completed parts 1 and
3, and the Trust completed part 4. Part 2, Taxpayer (Donor) Statement, applies to
items having a value of $500 or less.
 - 11 -

[*11] Mr. Pretsfelder listed the townhouse for sale on June 16, 2003. He drafted a

“setup” of the townhouse, which is a marketing tool that provides a brief summary

of the property. He mailed the setup to brokers, homeowners, and other interested

parties.

The setup stated an asking price of $5.5 million for the townhouse. Mr.

Pretsfelder believed that the asking price was too high relative to other properties

on the market, but he did not lower it at any point because petitioners had set the

asking price. Mr. Pretsfelder did not update the setup after the conservation

easement was donated because it was not something that he would normally flag

in marketing materials.

The real estate market in Manhattan was trending upward in 2004, and it

continued to do so through 2007. On November 20, 2007, petitioners, through

Mr. Pretsfelder, sold the townhouse to Gregory Astrachan and Jacqueline

Clements (buyers) for $4,650,500. The sale price was negotiated between Mr.

Pretsfelder and the buyers’ broker. At the time the sale price was negotiated, the

buyers had plans to significantly modify the townhouse, but neither the buyers nor

their broker had knowledge of the conservation easement. When the buyers

learned of the conservation easement, they had conversations with the Trust

regarding their plans to modify the townhouse. However, they did not lower their
 - 12 -

[*12] offer because the conservation easement did not affect their plans and they

wanted to honor their agreement.

On June 5, 2008, the LPC issued a certificate of appropriateness approving

the buyers’ plans to modify the townhouse. In addition to the LPC’s approval, the

buyers had to get the Trust’s approval. On October 21, 2008, the buyers submitted

a “Proposed Modification Request” form to the Trust, along with the LPC’s

certificate of appropriateness, architectural drawings, and photographs of the

proposed modifications. On November 5, 2008, the Trust mailed the buyers a

letter responding to their Proposed Modification Request. The Trust stated in the

letter that it did “not object” to the proposed modifications to the front of the

townhouse because, on the basis of the Trust’s assessment, the modifications “will

not be inconsistent with the historic character of the * * * [townhouse] and are

consistent with the terms and purpose of the Easement.” The Trust further stated

that it “would object” to the modifications to the rear of the townhouse if it had

jurisdiction because these modifications would irreversibly change the footprint of

the townhouse.

IV. Petitioners’ Tax Returns

Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo timely filed a joint Federal

income tax return for 2004 on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. On
 - 13 -

[*13] the return they reported a noncash charitable contribution deduction of

$330,000, representing one-half of the fair market value of the conservation

easement as reported on the appraisal report. They also reported a cash charitable

contribution deduction of $31,350, representing one-half of the cash petitioners

had donated to the Trust in 2004. Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo were

able to use only part of the $330,000 deduction for 2004 because of applicable

gross income limitations on charitable contribution deductions, see sec.

170(b)(1)(B), and they carried the excess forward to other taxable years. The only

year at issue for Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo is 2004.

Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo also reported a noncash charitable contribution

deduction of $330,000 and a cash charitable contribution deduction of $31,350

(representing her 50% share) on her 2004 Federal income tax return. She, too, was

able to use only part of the $330,000 deduction for 2004 and carried the excess

forward. However, 2004 is not at issue for Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo as it is for Dr.

Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo. The years at issue for Ms. Sandin-

Zarlengo are 2005-07, the years for which she claimed carryforward noncash

charitable contribution deductions flowing from the $330,000 deduction she

originally reported for 2004.
 - 14 -

[*14] Leonard Cirillo of the accounting firm Cirillo, Francis & Cirillo Certified

Public Accountants, LLP, prepared the joint 2004 return for Dr. Zarlengo and Ms.

McMahon-Zarlengo and the individual 2004-07 returns for Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo.

Mr. Cirillo had been preparing tax returns for petitioners since 1997 and continued

to do so after the years in issue. He is a licensed certified public accountant

(C.P.A.) in New York. He had approximately 20 years of experience in

accounting at the time he prepared the 2004 returns.

Mr. Cirillo first heard of the conservation easement deduction from Dr.

Zarlengo. Dr. Zarlengo had stopped by Mr. Cirillo’s office to inquire whether

such a deduction was legitimate. This occurred before petitioners had met with a

representative of the Trust. Mr. Cirillo agreed to look into it. He then read an

article on conservation easements in the Journal of Accountancy written by a

C.P.A. and researched the relevant substantiation requirements.7 Mr. Cirillo called

Dr. Zarlengo on the phone and explained that the deduction was legitimate and

that petitioners would need to obtain an appraisal and Forms 8283 to attach to

their tax returns. It was only after hearing back from Mr. Cirillo that Dr. Zarlengo

asked Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo to pursue the donation further.

7
Mr. Cirillo believes that he consulted the Master Tax Guide for the
substantiation requirements.
 - 15 -

[*15] Dr. Zarlengo does not have a background in tax, finance, or accounting.

When it came time to file his tax return each year, he would collect any and all

relevant documents in his possession, place them in an envelope, and give the

envelope to Mr. Cirillo in person. Likewise, Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo does not have a

background in tax, finance, or accounting. Dr. Zarlengo provided Mr. Cirillo with

some of the documents needed to prepare Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s return (even

after they were divorced), and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo provided additional

documents and information to Mr. Cirillo by fax, email, or telephone.

Dr. Zarlengo provided Mr. Cirillo with the appraisal report, the appraisal

summary, and the conservation deed. On the basis of his earlier research and his

review of these documents, Mr. Cirillo felt comfortable that petitioners had

sufficiently substantiated the deductions. Furthermore, nothing in these

documents gave Mr. Cirillo cause for concern as to the accuracy of Mr. Haims’

appraised values. Mr. Cirillo signed Dr. Zarlengo’s 2004 return and Ms. Sandin-

Zarlengo’s 2004-07 returns under penalties of perjury believing the returns to be

true and correct.

V. Notices of Deficiency

On November 25, 2009, respondent mailed Dr. Zarlengo and Ms.

McMahon-Zarlengo a notice of deficiency for 2004. Respondent determined a
 - 16 -

[*16] deficiency of $11,773 which is attributable to his disallowance of both the

deduction for the conservation easement and the deduction for the cash donation

to the Trust. Respondent also determined a penalty of $1,574 under section

6662(h) with respect to the conservation easement (and alternatively a penalty

under section 6662(a)) and a penalty of $1,117 under section 6662(a) with respect

to the cash donation. Respondent has since conceded that Dr. Zarlengo and Ms.

McMahon-Zarlengo are entitled to the deduction for the cash donation and are not

liable for the section 6662(a) penalty with respect to the cash donation.

Also on November 25, 2009, respondent mailed Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo a

notice of deficiency for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Respondent determined a

deficiency of $8,938 for 2005, $10,003 for 2006, and $39,590 for 2007 all of

which are attributable to his disallowance of carryforward charitable contribution

deductions stemming from the conservation easement. Respondent determined

penalties of $3,575 for 2005, $4,001 for 2006, and $15,836 for 2007 under section

6662(h) (and alternatively penalties under section 6662(a)).

Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo timely filed a petition in response

to the notice of deficiency for 2004. Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo timely filed a petition

in response to the notice of deficiency for 2005-07. We consolidated the cases.

We must now decide whether petitioners are entitled to any of the disputed
 - 17 -

[*17] deductions they claimed for their donation of the conservation easement and

whether they are liable for any of the disputed penalties respondent has

determined.

OPINION

I. Burden of Proof

The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency are generally

presumed correct, and a taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the

Commissioner’s determinations are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,

290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The burden of proof on factual issues that affect a

taxpayer’s liability for tax generally may be shifted to the Commissioner where the

“taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to * * * such issue.” Sec.

7491(a)(1); see also Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 440-441 (2001).

Petitioners argue that the burden shifts to respondent under section 7491(a).

Respondent disagrees and argues that petitioners have not satisfied the

requirements of section 7491.

The party whose position is supported by the weight of the evidence will

prevail regardless of which party bore the burden of persuasion. See Blodgett v.

Commissioner, 394 F.3d 1030, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2003-212.

Consequently, a shift in the burden of persuasion “‘is of practical consequence
 - 18 -

[*18] only in the rare event of an evidentiary tie.’” Id. (quoting Polack v.

Commissioner, 366 F.3d 608, 613 (8th Cir. 2004), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2002-145).

We decide these cases on the weight of the evidence presented instead of on an

allocation of the burden of proof and thus need not decide whether the burden of

proof has shifted.

II. Conservation Easements in General

A taxpayer is generally allowed a deduction for any charitable contribution

made during the taxable year. Sec. 170(a)(1). A charitable contribution includes a

gift of property to a charitable organization, made with charitable intent and

without the receipt or expectation of receipt of adequate consideration. See

Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 690 (1989); United States v. Am. Bar

Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 116-118 (1986); see also sec. 1.170A-1(h)(1) and (2),

Income Tax Regs. While a taxpayer is generally not allowed a charitable

contribution deduction for a gift of property consisting of less than an entire

interest in that property, an exception is made for a “qualified conservation

contribution.” See sec. 170(f)(3)(A), (B)(iii).

A “qualified conservation contribution” is a contribution (1) of a “qualified

real property interest” (2) to a “qualified organization” (3) which is made

“exclusively for conservation purposes.” Sec. 170(h)(1); see also sec.
 - 19 -

[*19] 1.170A-14(a), Income Tax Regs. Respondent argues that petitioners are not

entitled to a deduction for their contribution of the conservation easement because

the conservation easement was not a qualified real property interest nor was it

made exclusively for conservation purposes.8

A. General Rules on Perpetuity

Section 170(h)(2) defines “qualified real property interest” as:

any of the following interests in real property:

(A) the entire interest of the donor other than a qualified
mineral interest,

(B) a remainder interest, and

(C) a restriction (granted in perpetuity) on the use which
may be made of the real property.

Section 1.170A-14(b)(2), Income Tax Regs., provides the following with respect

to section 170(h)(2)(C):

A “perpetual conservation restriction” is a qualified real
property interest. A “perpetual conservation restriction” is a
restriction granted in perpetuity on the use which may be made of real
property--including, an easement or other interest in real property that
under state law has attributes similar to an easement (e.g., a restrictive
covenant or equitable servitude). * * *

8
Respondent does not dispute that the Trust is a qualified organization.
 - 20 -

[*20] Like section 170(h)(2)(C), section 170(h)(5) specifies that the conservation

purpose must be protected in perpetuity. Section 170(h)(5)(A) provides that “[a]

contribution shall not be treated as exclusively for conservation purposes unless

the conservation purpose is protected in perpetuity.” Although paragraphs (2)(C)

and (5) both require perpetuity, they are separate and distinct requirements.

Section 170(h)(2)(C) specifies that the donated interest in real property must be

subject to a use restriction in perpetuity, whereas section 170(h)(5) specifies that

the conservation purpose of a conservation easement must be protected in

perpetuity. Belk v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 1, 12 (2013); sec. 1.170A-14(a),

Income Tax Regs. A restriction granted in perpetuity on the use of the property

must be based upon legally enforceable restrictions (such as by recording the

deed) that will prevent uses of the retained interest in the property that are

inconsistent with the conservation purpose of the contribution. See sec. 1.170A-

14(g)(1), Income Tax Regs.

B. Conservation Easements in New York

In a Federal tax controversy, State law controls the determination of a

taxpayer’s interest in property while the tax consequences are determined under

Federal law. United States v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 722 (1985);

Woods v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 159, 162 (2011). Therefore, New York law
 - 21 -

[*21] governs when petitioners’ donation of the conservation easement is regarded

as complete, and Federal tax law determines the tax consequences.

Under New York law, an instrument purporting to create, convey, modify,

or terminate a conservation easement is not effective unless recorded. N.Y. Envtl.

Conserv. Law (NYEC Law) sec. 49-0305(4) (McKinney 2008 & Supp. 2014). In

Rothman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-163, slip op. at 30, we stated that

“[i]nsofar as New York law does not regard an easement contribution as effective

until the recordation date, we conclude that the contribution date for an easement

on real property in New York is the recording date.”

Petitioners argue that Rothman was wrongly decided. They argue that the

contribution date of the conservation easement was September 22, 2004, the date

on which a duly authorized representative of the Trust executed the conservation

deed on behalf of the Trust. They contend that “[t]he recordation requirement in

* * * [NYEC Law sec.] 49-0305(4) only makes the easement effective against

subsequent purchasers. It has nothing to do with the creation or conveyance of the

property interest.” We disagree.
 - 22 -

[*22] Petitioners rely on N.Y. Real Prop. Law (NYRP Law) secs. 244 and 291

(McKinney 2006).9 NYRP Law sec. 244 provides that a “grant takes effect, so as

to vest the estate or interest intended to be conveyed, only from its delivery”.

NYRP Law sec. 291 provides that

[a] conveyance of real property, within the state, * * * may be
recorded in the office of the clerk of the county where such real
property is situated * * *. Every such conveyance not so recorded is
void as against any person who subsequently purchases or acquires by
exchange or contracts to purchase or acquire by exchange, the same
real property or any portion thereof, * * * in good faith and for a
valuable consideration, * * * and whose conveyance, contract or
assignment is first duly recorded * * * [Emphasis added.]

Both of these sections provide the general rules in New York with respect to

conveyances of real property. Conservation easements, however, are subject to

special rules in NYEC Law art. 49 tit. 3. These special rules apply only to

conservation easements. See NYEC Law sec. 49-0309 (“This title shall not affect

any interests or rights in real property which are not conservation easements, and

shall not affect the rights of owners to convey any interests in real property which

9
Petitioners cite a number of cases on brief which discuss N.Y. Real Prop.
Law secs. 244 and/or 291 (McKinney 2006), including Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v.
Cont’l Ins. Cos., 308 N.E. 2d 682, 683 (N.Y. 1974), James v. Lewis, 522 N.Y.S.
2d 897, 898 (App. Div. 1987), and Bucklev v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 565 N.Y.S.
2d 419, 421 (Sup. Ct. 1991). These cases all deal with general conveyances of
real property and not conservation easements.
 - 23 -

[*23] they could now create under existing law without reference to the terms of

this title.”).

One of the special rules in the NYEC Law is that conservation easements

must be recorded. See NYEC Law sec. 49-0305(4) (“A conservation easement

shall be duly recorded and indexed as such in the office of the recording officer for

the county or counties where the land is situate in the manner prescribed by article

nine of the real property law.”). This rule differs from the general rule in NYRP

Law sec. 291, which provides that conveyances of real property may be recorded.

Conservation easements are governed by the special rules of the NYEC Law,

rather than the general rules of the NYRP Law, where the two conflict. See

D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin, 285 U.S. 204, 208 (1932) (“Specific terms

prevail over the general in the same or another statute which otherwise might be

controlling.”).

NYRP Law sec. 291 provides that if a conveyance of real property is not

recorded, then the conveyance is not effective against a subsequent purchaser for

value who records first. Petitioners argue that the same result applies to an

unrecorded conservation easement. But petitioners are mistaken. The NYEC Law

is clear that a conservation easement must be recorded. A conservation easement

that is not recorded does not have any legal effect in the State of New York. See
 - 24 -

[*24] NYEC Law sec. 49-0305(4) (“An instrument for the purpose of creating,

conveying, modifying or terminating a conservation easement shall not be

effective unless recorded.”).

In these cases, the conservation deed was recorded on January 26, 2005, by

the New York City Department of Finance, Office of the City Register.10 We

conclude that the conservation deed was not effective until that date. However,

even assuming arguendo that we were to accept petitioners’ argument that the

conservation deed was legally enforceable by the Trust against petitioners on

September 22, 2004, and became effective against subsequent purchasers on

January 26, 2005, the conservation easement still would not have satisfied the

perpetuity requirements of section 170(h)(2)(C) and (5)(A) in 2004.

Mr. Pretsfelder listed the townhouse for sale on behalf of petitioners on

June 16, 2003. He had drafted a setup of the townhouse and was actively

marketing the townhouse to potential buyers. However, he did not tell any of

10
Petitioners argue on brief that the Trust mailed the conservation deed to
the New York City Department of Finance, Office of the City Register, on
December 10, 2004, and that the conservation deed is deemed recorded as of that
date. However, petitioners have not presented any credible evidence that the Trust
mailed the conservation deed in 2004. The parties stipulated that “[t]he
conservation deed was recorded by the City of New York Office of Register on
January 26, 2005” and the record contains a copy of the Recording and
Endorsement cover page showing a recordation date of January 26, 2005. We find
that the recordation date is January 26, 2005.
 - 25 -

[*25] them about the conservation easement. If a buyer had purchased the

townhouse and had recorded the deed of conveyance before January 26, 2005, that

buyer could have taken the townhouse free and clear of the conservation easement.

See Panther Mountain Water Park, Inc. v. Cnty. of Essex, 836 N.Y.S. 2d 374, 376

(App. Div. 2007) (“A bona fide purchaser--one who purchases real property in

good faith, for valuable consideration, without actual or record notice of another

party’s adverse interests in the property and is the first to record the deed or

conveyance--takes title free and clear of such adverse interests[.]”); Webster v.

Ragona, 776 N.Y.S. 2d 347, 351 (App. Div. 2004) (“[A] good faith purchaser for

value is not bound by an easement which is not properly recorded prior to a

purchase of the encumbered property[.]”). The possibility that this could have

occurred was not “so remote as to be negligible.” See sec. 1.170A-14(g)(3),

Income Tax Regs.

We hold that the requirements of section 170(h)(2)(C) and (5)(A) have not

been met for 2004 because neither the use restriction nor the conservation purpose

of the conservation easement was protected in perpetuity until January 26, 2005.

Accordingly, Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo are not entitled to a

deduction for the conservation easement for 2004. We do not have jurisdiction to

redetermine Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s Federal income tax liability for 2004. We do,
 - 26 -

[*26] however, have jurisdiction to redetermine her tax liabilities for 2005-07, and

we may consider her 2004 taxable year as may be necessary for redetermining her

tax liability for 2005-07. See sec. 6214(b); Fitch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2012-358, at *27.

Because of applicable gross income limitations on charitable contribution

deductions, see sec. 170(b)(1)(B), Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo was able to use only

$32,038 of the $330,000 deduction that she reported on her 2004 tax return for the

conservation easement. Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo claimed carryover deductions on her

2005-07 tax returns based on the unused portion of the 2004 deduction. Because

she would not have been entitled to the 2004 deduction, it follows that she is not

entitled to the carryover deductions for 2005-07. See, e.g., Mountanos v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-138, at *17 (holding that the taxpayer was not

entitled to charitable contribution carryover deductions for the donation of a

conservation easement because the taxpayer failed to prove the easement had any

value); Naylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-19, at *9-*10 (“Without actual

substantiation of the original losses which led to the claimed 2003 capital loss

carryovers, we cannot allow petitioner’s 2003 capital loss carryover deductions.”).

We asked the parties to brief whether any of petitioners might be entitled to

a deduction for the conservation easement for any of the other years at issue in the
 - 27 -

[*27] event the Court were to agree with respondent that the requirements of the

statute have not been met for 2004. The parties agree, as do we, that the Court

lacks jurisdiction to determine whether Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. McMahon-Zarlengo

are entitled to a deduction for any other year because the only year before the

Court with respect to them is 2004. The situation is different with respect to Ms.

Sandin-Zarlengo. We have jurisdiction to redetermine her Federal income tax

liabilities for 2005-07. Respondent “acknowledges that the [Conservation]

Easement could be considered made in perpetuity under * * * [section]

170(h)(2)(C) & (5)(A) in 2005, because the [Conservation] Easement was

recorded in that year.” Notwithstanding, respondent argues that Ms. Sandin-

Zarlengo is not entitled to a deduction for any other year because she failed to

properly substantiate the conservation easement. Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo argues that

she “complied or substantially complied with all the requirements for the

deduction in 2005” and that we should “redetermine her tax liability for 2005,

2006, and 2007 accordingly.”

We find that both the use restriction and the conservation purpose of the

conservation easement were protected in perpetuity as of January 26, 2005. We

further find that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has satisfied the other requirements of
 - 28 -

[*28] section 170(h) with respect to the conservation easement for 2005.11 We

determine next whether she has met the relevant substantiation requirements.

III. Substantiation Requirements

A. General Rules

A taxpayer is generally allowed a deduction for any charitable contribution

of property made during the taxable year only if the contribution is verified under

regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Sec. 170(a)(1). The amount allowed as a

deduction for a noncash contribution of property is the fair market value of the

contributed property measured as of the donation date. See sec. 1.170A-1(c)(1),

11
Respondent argues on brief that the conservation easement did not have a
“conservation purpose” within the meaning of sec. 170(h)(4)(A)(iv) because it did
not preserve the townhouse in any way that local law did not. We disagree. The
townhouse is subject to the good repair standard. The LPC does not actively
monitor properties subject to this standard. The LPC instead relies on the local
community to report violations. The Trust, on the other hand, actively monitors
properties on which it owns a conservation easement through annual inspections.
We find this difference to be significant.

Moreover, the LPC and the Trust do not follow the same preservation
standards. The LPC has its own set of regulations. These regulations are found in
the LPC code and the LPC rules. The Trust follows the standards promulgated by
the Secretary of the Interior. The LPC’s regulations and the Secretary’s standards
are similar, but not identical. John Weiss, deputy counsel for the LPC, credibly
testified that the LPC changes its rules approximately every two years. We find
that the conservation easement provides the townhouse with an additional layer of
protection over and above that provided by the LPC’s regulations. Accordingly,
we find that the conservation easement preserves the townhouse within the
meaning of sec. 170(h)(4)(A)(iv).
 - 29 -

[*29] Income Tax Regs. A deduction claimed for a noncash contribution of

property valued at more than $5,000 is generally denied unless the taxpayer

obtains a qualified appraisal of the donated property and attaches to the return for

the taxable year in which the contribution is made such information regarding the

property and the appraisal as the Secretary requires. Sec. 170(f)(11)(A)(i), (C).12

Section 170(f)(11) and section 1.170A-13(c)(2), Income Tax Regs., collectively

require a taxpayer claiming a noncash charitable contribution deduction of more

than $5,000 to (1) obtain a qualified appraisal of the contributed property, (2)

attach to the return first claiming the deduction a fully completed appraisal

summary (i.e., Form 8283), and (3) maintain records containing the information

required in section 1.170A-13(b)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs.

Another relevant statutory provision is the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

(DEFRA), Pub. L. No. 98-369, sec. 155, 98 Stat. at 691, through which Congress

directed the Secretary to prescribe regulations requiring any individual, closely

held corporation, or personal services corporation claiming a charitable

contribution deduction for which the claimed value of the contributed property is

12
The requirements of sec. 170(f)(11) apply to petitioners’ donation of the
conservation easement to the Trust because that contribution was completed after
the effective date of that section; i.e., after June 3, 2004. See American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-357, sec. 883(b), 118 Stat. at 1632.
 - 30 -

[*30] more than $5,000 to obtain a qualified appraisal. Congress defined the term

“qualified appraisal” to mean an appraisal prepared by a qualified appraiser that

includes, among other information, (1) a description of the property appraised, (2)

the fair market value of the property on the contribution date and the specific basis

for valuation, (3) a statement that the appraisal was prepared for income tax

purposes, (4) the qualifications of the appraiser, and (5) any additional information

the Secretary may prescribe by regulation. Id. sec. 155(a)(4), 98 Stat. at 692.

Pursuant to his grant of authority under DEFRA, the Secretary promulgated

section 1.170A-13(c), Income Tax Regs. See T.D. 8199, 1988-1 C.B. 99 (stating

in the preamble that amendments to the regulations interpreting section 170 were

promulgated to conform existing regulations to DEFRA sec. 155).

Regulations issued under section 170 generally define a qualified appraisal

as an appraisal document prepared by a qualified appraiser no earlier than 60 days

before the contribution date and no later than the extended due date of the return

first claiming the deduction. Sec. 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs.

Additionally, a qualified appraisal must include the following information:

(A) A description of the property in sufficient detail for a
person who is not generally familiar with the type of property to
ascertain that the property that was appraised is the property that was
(or will be) contributed;
 - 31 -

[*31] (B) In the case of tangible property, the physical
condition of the property;

(C) The date (or expected date) of contribution to the donee;

(D) The terms of any agreement or understanding entered into
(or expected to be entered into) by or on behalf of the donor or donee
that relates to the use, sale, or other disposition of the property
contributed, * * *

(E) The name, address, and * * * the identifying number of the
qualified appraiser; and, if the qualified appraiser is acting in his or
her capacity as * * * an employee of any person (whether an
individual, corporation, or partnerships [sic]), * * * the name,
address, and taxpayer identification number * * * of * * * the person
who employs or engages the qualified appraiser;

(F) The qualifications of the qualified appraiser who signs the
appraisal, including the appraiser’s background, experience,
education, and membership, if any, in professional appraisal
associations;

(G) A statement that the appraisal was prepared for income tax
purposes;

(H) The date (or dates) on which the property was appraised;

(I) The appraised fair market value (within the meaning of
§1.170A-1(c)(2)) of the property on the date (or expected date) of
contribution;

(J) The method of valuation used to determine the fair market
value, such as the income approach, the market-data approach, and
the replacement-cost-less depreciation approach; and

(K) The specific basis for the valuation, such as specific
comparable sales transactions or statistical sampling, including a
 - 32 -

[*32] justification for using sampling and an explanation of the
sampling procedure employed.

Sec. 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs.

B. Substantial Compliance

The provisions of section 1.170A-13(c)(3), Income Tax Regs., are directory,

requiring substantial compliance, rather than mandatory, requiring strict

compliance. See Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32 (1993). At issue in Bond

was whether the taxpayers were entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for

the contribution of two blimps to a charitable organization. The Bond parties

agreed upon the value of the contributed property, that a qualified appraiser

completed an appraisal, and that the donee organization was qualified to receive

the contribution. The Commissioner, however, asserted that the taxpayers were

not entitled to the claimed deduction because they failed to obtain and attach to

their return a separate written appraisal including the reporting information

specified in section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs. In concluding that the

requirements of section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs., were directory as opposed

to mandatory, we explained:

[I]t is apparent that the essence of section 170 is to allow certain
taxpayers a charitable deduction for contributions made to certain
organizations. It is equally apparent that the reporting requirements
of section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs., are helpful to respondent in
 - 33 -

[*33] the processing and auditing of returns on which charitable
deductions are claimed. However, the reporting requirements do not
relate to the substance or essence of whether or not a charitable
contribution was actually made. We conclude, therefore, that the
reporting requirements are directory and not mandatory. [Id. at 41;
citations omitted.]

We held that the taxpayers in Bond had substantially complied with the

requirements of section 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs., noting that information

missing from their return was promptly furnished to the Commissioner’s revenue

agent at or near the beginning of the audit.

In Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258 (1997), aff’d without published

opinion, 166 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1998), the taxpayers had claimed a charitable

contribution deduction for a donation of shares of stock that were not publicly

traded. The taxpayers, however, had not obtained qualified appraisals before

filing their returns for the years at issue. The Commissioner disallowed a portion

of the deduction because of the lack of a qualified appraisal. The taxpayers

countered that they had substantially complied with the appraisal requirements and

attempted to rely on Bond.

We rejected the taxpayers’ argument because the taxpayers had not provided

any of the information required by section 170 and the regulations thereunder.

Taken together, Bond and Hewitt “provide a standard by which we can consider
 - 34 -

[*34] whether petitioners provided sufficient information to permit respondent to

evaluate their reported contributions, as intended by Congress.” Smith v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-368, slip op. at 47, aff’d, 364 Fed. Appx. 317

(9th Cir. 2009).

C. Application of the Law

Respondent argues that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has failed to comply with a

number of the aforementioned substantiation requirements. We address each of

the disputed requirements in turn.

1. Date of the Appraisal Report

Respondent argues that Mr. Haims prepared the appraisal report more than

60 days before the date of the contribution of the conservation easement in

violation of section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i)(A), Income Tax Regs. The appraisal

report is dated August 24, 2004, and has an effective date of July 26, 2004 (i.e.,

the date on which the conservation easement is valued). Petitioners signed the

conservation deed on September 10, 2004, and a duly authorized representative of

the Trust signed the conservation deed on September 22, 2004. Thus, both

petitioners and the Trust assented to the terms of the conservation deed within 60

days of July 26, 2004. However, the conservation deed was not recorded until

January 26, 2005. As previously discussed, we conclude that the date of the
 - 35 -

[*35] contribution is the date of recordation. See supra pp. 20-28. Therefore, the

appraisal report was untimely.

However, the timeliness requirement of section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i)(A),

Income Tax Regs., does not relate to the essence of section 170. See Bond v.

Commissioner, 100 T.C. at 41; see also Sperapani v. Commissioner, 42 T.C. 308,

331 (1964) (“‘Generally those directions which are not of the essence of the thing

to be done, but which are given with a view merely to the proper, orderly and

prompt conduct of the business, and by the failure to obey no prejudice will occur

to those whose rights are protected by the statute, are not commonly considered

mandatory.’” (quoting 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, sec. 2802, at 216 (3d

ed.))). We have previously found that a taxpayer may substantially comply with

the substantiation requirements notwithstanding the taxpayer’s premature

appraisal. See Consol. Investors Grp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-290,

slip op. at 59 (concluding that the premature nature, by approximately three

months, of a partnership’s appraisal report was insubstantial).

2. Adequate Description

Respondent argues that the appraisal report fails to describe property that

was appraised within the meaning of section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(A), Income Tax

Regs. We disagree. The appraisal report describes the property appraised as a
 - 36 -

[*36] “historic preservation easement”. The appraisal report includes a detailed

description of the townhouse complete with photographs of its interior, exterior,

and surroundings. Moreover, part 1 of the appraisal summary describes the

property appraised as “309 West 80th Street” and as a “Historic Preservation

Easement”. We find that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has complied or substantially

complied with section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(A), Income Tax Regs.

3. Date of the Contribution

Respondent argues that the appraisal report fails to state the date (or

expected date) of the contribution as required by section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(C),

Income Tax Regs. This is true. However, on part 4 of the appraisal summary, the

Trust acknowledged that it had received the conservation easement on September

22, 2004. Thus, respondent was put on notice that the date (or expected date) of

the contribution was to be September 22, 2004, notwithstanding our holding that

the contribution was not actually effective until January 26, 2005. In Simmons v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-208, slip op. at 18, aff’d, 646 F.3d 6 (D.C. Cir.

2011), we found that the taxpayer complied with section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(C),

Income Tax Regs., where the date of the contribution was provided on Forms 8283

attached to the taxpayer’s tax return. We find that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has
 - 37 -

[*37] complied or substantially complied with section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(C),

Income Tax Regs.

4. Terms of Agreement or Understanding

Respondent argues that the appraisal report fails to provide the terms of any

agreement or understanding entered into as required by section

1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(D), Income Tax Regs. We disagree. Mr. Haims attached a

copy of the sample deed to the appraisal report. The sample deed was identical in

all material respects to the conservation deed, except for the fact that it had a few

blank lines for the donor’s personal information (such as the donor’s name,

address, historic district, etc.). Petitioners’ personal information was provided

elsewhere in the appraisal report. We find that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has complied

or substantially complied with section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(D), Income Tax Regs.

5. Appraisal Report Prepared for Income Tax Purposes

Respondent argues that the appraisal report does not contain a statement

that it was prepared for income tax purposes as required by section

1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(G), Income Tax Regs. The appraisal report states that its

intended use “is to assist our client [Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo] in determining the

Federal tax benefits resulting from the creation of the subject’s [townhouse’s]

historic preservation easement.” We find that this statement complies or
 - 38 -

[*38] substantially complies with the requirements of section

1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(G), Income Tax Regs.

6. Fair Market Value of the Conservation Easement

Respondent argues that the appraisal report fails to appraise the “fair market

value” of the conservation easement as required by section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(I),

Income Tax Regs. Mr. Haims determined the “market value” of the townhouse to

be $6 million as of July 26, 2004. He then applied an 11% diminution to the

“market value” of the townhouse to arrive at a value of $660,000 for the

conservation easement.

Mr. Haims defines the term “market value” in the appraisal report as:

The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in
terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for
which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable
exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a
fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently,
knowledgeably and for self interest, and assuming that neither is
under undue duress.

Section 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income Tax Regs., defines “fair market value” as “the

price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a

willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having

reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” This definition is similar to Mr. Haims’

definition of “market value”, though not identical.
 - 39 -

[*39] On part 1 of the appraisal summary, Mr. Haims states the conservation

easement’s appraised “fair market value” to be $660,000, the exact same value as

stated in his appraisal report for the conservation easement’s “market value”.

Furthermore, the parties have stipulated that “According tò the Haims Appraisal

the facade easement had a fair market value of $660,000 at the time of

contribution.” By all accounts, it appears that Mr. Haims used the terms “market

value” and “fair market value” synonymously. We find that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo

has complied or substantially complied with section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii)(I),

Income Tax Regs.

7. Qualified Appraiser

Respondent argues that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has failed to satisfy section

1.170A-13(c)(3)(i)(B), Income Tax Regs. That regulation requires that an

appraisal be “prepared, signed, and dated by a qualified appraiser (within the

meaning of paragraph (c)(5) of this section)”. The parties have stipulated that: (1)

petitioners retained Mr. Haims to appraise the conservation easement; (2) the

appraisal report was prepared by Mr. Haims; and (3) Mr. Haims is a qualified

appraiser. Mr. Haims prepared, signed, and dated the appraisal report.

Section 1.170A-13(c)(5)(iii), Income Tax Regs., provides:
 - 40 -

[*40] More than one appraiser may appraise the donated property. If
more than one appraiser appraises the property, the donor does not
have to use each appraiser’s appraisal for purposes of substantiating
the charitable contribution deduction pursuant to this paragraph (c).
If the donor uses the appraisal of more than one appraiser, or if two or
more appraisers contribute to a single appraisal, each appraiser shall
comply with the requirements of this paragraph (c), including signing
the qualified appraisal and appraisal summary as required by
paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(B) and (c)(4)(i)(C) of this section, respectively.

Respondent argues that the appraisal report does not state whether Ms. Hao is a

qualified appraiser within the meaning of section 1.170A-13(c)(5), Income Tax

Regs., and that she did not testify at trial. Ms. Hao is an employee of Mr. Haims’

company. She performed a physical inspection of the townhouse and assisted Mr.

Haims in the preparation of the appraisal report. There is no indication in the

record that any of the figures in the appraisal report were her own. We do not

believe that her assistance has caused Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo to violate section

1.170A-13(c)(3)(i)(B), Income Tax Regs.

D. Conclusion Regarding Substantiation Requirements

Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has complied or substantially complied with all of the

disputed substantiation requirements under section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(ii), Income

Tax Regs. She has not complied or substantially complied with the timeliness

requirement under section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i)(A), Income Tax Regs., in that the

appraisal report was premature. However, as previously discussed, this
 - 41 -

[*41] requirement does not relate to the essence of section 170. We conclude that

Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has satisfied the requirements to substantiate the

conservation easement.

IV. Valuation of the Conservation Easement

A. General Principles

We now arrive at the question of valuation--how much is the conservation

easement actually worth? The regulations provide that the value of a conservation

easement is the fair market value of the conservation easement at the time of the

contribution. See sec. 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs. If a substantial

record of sales of conservation easements comparable to the donated conservation

easement exists, then the fair market value of the donated conservation easement

is based on the sale prices of the comparable easements. See id.

However, there is no substantial record of sales of conservation easements

similar to the conservation easement that petitioners donated. In such a case, the

regulations provide that the fair market value of a conservation easement, as a

general rule, is equal to the difference between the fair market value of the

encumbered property before the conservation easement is granted and the fair

market value of the encumbered property after the conservation easement is

granted. See id. This approach is known as the “before and after” approach. It
 - 42 -

[*42] has been used by this Court on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Hilborn v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 677, 689 (1985); Gorra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2013-254, at *49; Simmons v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-208, slip op. at

26.

B. The Expert Witnesses

The parties each called an expert witness to help us determine the fair

market value of the conservation easement. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Crimi v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-51, at *40 (“An expert witness may be allowed

to testify in a proceeding before this Court when his or her scientific, technical, or

other specialized knowledge might help us to understand the evidence or decide a

fact in issue.”). We evaluate expert opinions in the light of all the evidence in the

record, and we may accept or reject an expert’s testimony, in whole or in part,

according to our independent evaluation of the evidence in the record. See

Helvering v. Nat’l Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 295 (1938); Malachinski v.

Commissioner, 268 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2001), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1999-182; Estate

of Davis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 530, 538 (1998).
 - 43 -

[*43] Petitioners offered expert testimony of Eric Haims.13 Eric Haims is the

senior vice president of Jerome Haims Realty, Inc. He is a certified real estate

general appraiser in New York. He appraised the conservation easement using the

“before and after” approach as of September 22, 2004, and as of January 26, 2005.

Respondent offered expert testimony of Timothy Barnes. Mr. Barnes is a

senior managing director at Cushman & Wakefield. He is also a certified real

estate general appraiser in New York. He appraised the conservation easement

using the “before and after” approach as of September 22, 2004, only.

C. The “Before” Values

1. Eric Haims’ “Before” Values

Eric Haims used the “sales comparison approach” to determine the “before”

values of the conservation easement as of September 22, 2004, and as of January

26, 2005. The “sales comparison approach” is based on the principle of

substitution, the theory being that the value of a property sold in a competitive

market is based on the cost of acquiring a comparable substitute property. Under

this approach, Eric Haims researched properties in Manhattan that were

comparable to the townhouse and that had sold on the market in 2004 or 2005. He

13
Eric Haims is Jerome Haims’ son. To avoid confusion, we will refer to
Eric Haims by his full name.
 - 44 -

[*44] selected three properties on the Upper West Side that, in his view, were

comparable to the townhouse. He then adjusted the sale prices of these properties

to account for differences between the properties and the townhouse in (1) date of

sale, (2) location, (3) frontage, (4) presence of an elevator, (5) condition, (6)

presence of a garage, (7) number of baths, (8) gross living area, and (9) number of

fireplaces. He arrived at “before” values of $5.5 million and $6 million as of

September 22, 2004, and January 26, 2005, respectively.

2. Mr. Barnes’ “Before” Value

Like Eric Haims, Mr. Barnes used the “sales comparison approach” to

determine the “before” value of the conservation easement. He selected five

properties on the Upper West Side that, in his view, were comparable to the

townhouse.14 He then adjusted the sale prices of the properties to account for

differences between the properties and the townhouse in (1) market conditions, (2)

location, (3) size, (4) condition, (5) floors, and (6) frontage. He arrived at a

“before” value of the townhouse of $3.6 million as of September 22, 2004. He did

not compute a value for the townhouse as of January 26, 2005.

14
These five properties were all different from the properties that Eric
Haims had selected for use in his Sales Comparison Approach.
 - 45 -

[*45] 3. Analysis of “Before” Values

On brief, each of the parties criticizes the adjustments of the other parties’

expert. Respondent argues that “Eric Haims abused the adjustment process in

order to artificially inflate the ‘before’ value of the Property -- under the

percentage ‘theory’ the higher the ‘before’ value, the higher the easement’s value.”

Petitioners argue that Mr. Barnes made some excessive adjustments and failed to

make other necessary adjustments, the result being that his “before” value was too

low.

We find many of the parties’ criticisms to be well founded. Each expert

made adjustments designed to support his side’s litigating positions. Experts lose

their usefulness and credibility when they merely become advocates for the

position argued by a party. Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 129 (1989).15

Petitioners’ expert computed unreasonably high “before” values, while

respondent’s expert computed an unreasonably low “before” value. We believe

that the true value of the townhouse lies somewhere in between.

15
An expert qualified to testify in a judicial proceeding owes a duty to the
Court that transcends the duty to his or her client insofar as the expert must present
his or her opinion, as well as the facts, data, and analysis on which he or she
relied, neutrally and candidly. Estate of Halas v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 570,
577-578 (1990); see also Estate of Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-98, slip op. at 22-23; Wagner Constr., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-160, slip op. at 50-51.
 - 46 -

[*46] We are not bound by values computed by either side’s expert witness. See

Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 933 (2nd Cir. 1976), aff’g T.C. Memo.

1974-285. We may reach our own determination of value on the basis of our

analysis of the evidence in the record. Id.

Mr. Pretsfelder credibly testified that he thought petitioners’ $5.5 million

asking price for the townhouse was too high relative to other properties on the

market, and that the townhouse “would have sold in the four’s”. He further

testified that “four and a half” did not “sound unreasonable”. We find Mr.

Pretsfelder to be a credible and unbiased witness.16 He specializes in townhouse

sales and was very familiar with petitioners’ townhouse. We find that $4.5 million

is the best evidence of the “before” value of the townhouse as of January 26, 2005.

D. The “After” Values

1. Eric Haims’ “After” Values

Eric Haims conducted an empirical market study based on a “paired sales

analysis” of residential properties in New York City to determine the “after”

values of the conservation easement. As its name implies, this technique calls for

comparing the sale prices of properties that are matched in pairs. In theory, the

16
While Mr. Pretsfelder was petitioners’ broker, he was actually called to
testify as a witness for respondent.
 - 47 -

[*47] properties in each pair would be identical except for the fact that one of the

properties would be encumbered by an easement. The premise is that when two

properties are identical in all respects except that one of the properties is

encumbered by an easement, the value of the easement can be measured as the

difference between the sale prices of the two properties. In practice, however, it is

all but impossible to find identical pairs of unencumbered and easement-

encumbered properties. Therefore, similar properties are generally paired, and

adjustments are made to the sale price of one of the properties in each pair to

account for differences between the properties.

Eric Haims matched 10 pairs of comparable unencumbered and easement-

encumbered properties together. He then adjusted one of the properties in each

pair for differences in (1) location, (2) gross living area, (3) presence of an

elevator, (4) parking, and (5) frontage. He arrived at median and mean

diminutions of value of 8.81% and 11.20%, respectively, to the easement-

encumbered properties as a result of the additional burdens imposed by the

conservation easements on the properties.

Eric Haims selected 11% as the diminution of value to apply to the

townhouse as a result of the conservation easement. He arrived at “after” values

for the townhouse of $4.9 million and $5.34 million as of September 22, 2004, and
 - 48 -

[*48] January 26, 2005, respectively. He subtracted the “after” values from the

“before” values to arrive at fair market values of $600,000 and $660,000 for the

conservation easement as of September 22, 2004, and January 26, 2005,

respectively.

2. Mr. Barnes’ “After” Value

Mr. Barnes did not attempt to compute the “after” value of the townhouse

using any methodology.17 He states in his expert report that the value of the

townhouse might in theory be diminished by the grant of the conservation

easement as a result of one or more factors. He then lists various factors that

might cause the granting of a conservation easement to reduce the value of a

property, including its placing a greater burden on the property owner. He

concludes, however, that he is “not persuaded that the [conservation] easement

places a greater burden on the owner, creates an additional layer of regulation, or

17
In an addendum to his expert report, Mr. Barnes lists six properties in
Manhattan that had been sold on the market before being encumbered by an
easement and had been resold after being encumbered by an easement. He notes
that there was “substantial appreciation in the value of the properties” between the
sales and resales. The resales occurred roughly four to eight years after the
original sales. The increases in the resale prices are likely due to a number of
factors, including appreciation in the real estate market. Mr. Barnes did not
attempt to isolate the effect of the easements on the resale prices. We find his
“analysis” to be devoid of any value for purposes of valuing the conservation
easement.
 - 49 -

[*49] will result in additional costs.”18 We disagree. We find that the

conservation easement did impose additional burdens. See supra note 11.

Mr. Barnes also states in his expert report that he “inquired among a number

of brokers and valuation professionals in the local market whether the presence of

a facade easement affected either the marketability of or the ability to finance a

townhouse”, and that “[t]he uniform response was that the easements had no effect

on buyer interest, marketing time, or the ability to secure mortgage capital.” Mr.

Barnes does not list the brokers and valuation professionals with whom he

purportedly consulted nor the questions that he purportedly asked them. Mr.

Barnes concludes that the “after” value of the townhouse was $3.6 million as of

18
We do not find it particularly significant that the buyers did not reduce
their offer on the townhouse after they became aware of the conservation
easement. Mr. Pretsfelder and the buyers’ broker had carried on extensive
negotiations up until that point. They had reached an agreement on a purchase
price of $4,650,500 for the townhouse, which was more than $800,000 below
petitioners’ $5.5 million asking price. Mr. Astrachan (one of the buyers) credibly
testified that he wanted to honor this agreement. Returning to the negotiating
table could very well have jeopardized the agreement, and it is certainly plausible
that the buyers did not want to risk the prospects of striking a new agreement.
Furthermore, the conservation easement resulted in additional compliance costs to
the buyers, who had to obtain the permission of the Trust before carrying out their
pre-purchase plans to modify the townhouse. The conservation easement did not
significantly affect these plans, but it might have a larger impact on any future
plans the buyers may have and/or plans of any future purchasers of the townhouse.
 - 50 -

[*50] September 22, 2004, the same as his “before” value, and that the

conservation easement thus had no value.

3. Analysis of “After” Values

Mr. Barnes’ conclusory analysis demonstrates his preconceived notion that

conservation easements have no value. We reject his analysis as unsupported and

unreliable.19 Ordinarily, any encumbrance on real property, however slight, would

tend to have some negative effect on a property’s fair market value. Gorra v.

Commissioner, at *57; Evans v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-207, slip op. at

15. Moreover, Mr. Pretsfelder credibly testified that if two properties are identical

in all respects, except for the fact that one of the two properties is burdened by a

conservation easement, the property without the easement will have a greater

value.

Eric Haims’ paired sales analysis, while conceptually sound, is marred by

flaws in its execution. Eric Haims did not adjust the values of the properties in his

analysis for several important characteristics, including date of sale and condition.

He admitted at trial that “if one of the properties was in slightly better or worse

19
While in Scheidelman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-18, at *17-
*18, aff’d, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. June 18, 2014), we found Mr. Barnes’ judgments
to be more reliable than those of the taxpayer’s expert, we find Mr. Barnes’ expert
report to be broad and conclusory in these cases and accord it little value. See
Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 129 (1989).
 - 51 -

[*51] condition, the percentage [diminution] may be a little bit different.” The

explanation he gave as to why he did not adjust the values of the properties for

differences in condition is that his “research and analysis didn’t produce enough

information to make condition adjustments to the pairs.”

Furthermore, many of Eric Haims’ adjustments seem to be rather arbitrary.

When questioned by respondent’s counsel as to why he adjusted the value of one

particular property in his analysis by $700 per square foot when the property

(including the land on which it was situated) sold for $638 per square foot, his

response was that his adjustment “doesn’t seem to correlate well.” We do not

adopt the “after” values of Eric Haims either.

We find, on the basis of our analysis of the evidence in the record, that 3.5%

is a reasonable diminution to the value of the townhouse as a result of the

additional burdens imposed by the conservation easement. See Scheidelman v.

Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (2d Cir. June 18, 2014) (“‘Valuation is . . .

necessarily an approximation[,]’ and ‘[i]t is not necessary that the value arrived at

by the trial court be a figure as to which there is specific testimony, if it is within

the range of figures that may properly be deduced from the evidence.’” (quoting

Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d at 933)), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2013-18; see

also Gorra v. Commissioner, at *61 (finding 2% to be a reasonable diminution in
 - 52 -

[*52] value); Simmons v. Commissioner, slip op. at 24-25 (finding 5% to be a

reasonable diminution in value). Applying a 3.5% diminution to the townhouse’s

$4.5 million “before” value, we find that the fair market value of the conservation

easement is $157,500 as of January 26, 2005. Accordingly, Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo

is entitled to a deduction of $78,750 for 2005 for her contribution of her 50%

interest in the conservation easement. We leave it to the parties to compute under

Rule 155 the amount of this deduction that Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo may use for 2005

and the excess, if any, that she may carry forward to 2006 and 2007.

V. Penalties

A. Introduction

Section 6662(a) and (b)(1), (2), and (3) imposes an accuracy-related penalty

if any part of an underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return is

attributable to, among other things, negligence or disregard of rules or regulations,

a substantial understatement of income tax, or a substantial valuation

misstatement. The penalty is 20% of the portion of the underpayment of tax to

which the section applies. Sec. 6662(a). In the case of a gross valuation

misstatement, 20% is increased to 40%. Sec. 6662(h)(1). Only one

accuracy-related penalty may be applied with respect to any given portion of an
 - 53 -

[*53] underpayment, even if that portion is subject to the penalty on more than one

of the grounds set out in section 6662(b). Sec. 1.6662-2(c), Income Tax Regs.

Respondent argues that petitioners are liable for a 40% gross valuation

misstatement penalty or, in the alternative, a 20% penalty for negligence, a

substantial understatement of income tax, or a substantial valuation misstatement.

Respondent bears the burden of production on the applicability of the

accuracy-related penalty in that he must come forward with sufficient evidence

indicating that it is proper to impose the penalty. See sec. 7491(c); see also

Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 446.

B. Valuation Misstatement Penalty

1. In General

We consider first the valuation misstatement penalty. Before the enactment

of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), Pub. L. No. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780,

a substantial valuation misstatement existed if the value of any property reported

on a tax return was “200 percent or more of the amount determined to be the

correct amount of such valuation”. Sec. 6662(e)(1)(A). If the valuation

misstatement was 400% or more of the correct amount, a gross valuation

misstatement existed and the 20% penalty increased to 40%. See sec.

6662(e)(1)(A), (h)(1), (2)(A)(i). Taxpayers could avoid these penalties under
 - 54 -

[*54] certain circumstances if they made a valuation misstatement in good faith

and with reasonable cause. See sec. 6664(c).

The PPA lowered the threshold from 200% to 150% for a substantial

valuation misstatement and from 400% to 200% for a gross valuation

misstatement. The PPA also eliminated the reasonable cause exception for gross

valuation misstatements of charitable deduction property. See sec. 6664(c)(2).20

These PPA changes apply to “returns filed after July 25, 2006.”21 PPA sec.

1219(e)(3), 120 Stat. at 1086.

2. Pre-PPA Returns

Dr. Zarlengo’s 2004 joint return and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s 2005 return

were filed before July 25, 2006. Therefore, the PPA does not apply to those

returns. We need not decide whether respondent has met his burden of production

as to the substantial or gross valuation misstatement penalties (or any of the other

accuracy-related penalties) for 2004 and 2005 because we find that Dr. Zarlengo

20
This provision was moved to sec. 6664(c)(3) in the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, sec. 1409(c), 124
Stat. at 1069.
21
For charitable contributions of property other than facade easements, the
changes are effective for returns filed after August 17, 2006.
 - 55 -

[*55] and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo meet the reasonable cause and good faith

exception for those years.

Section 6664(c)(1) provides an exception to the imposition of a section

6662 accuracy-related penalty with respect to any portion of an underpayment if a

taxpayer establishes that there was reasonable cause for such portion and the

taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to such portion. In the case of an

underpayment attributable to a substantial or gross valuation misstatement with

respect to charitable deduction property, the taxpayer must also establish that the

claimed value of the property was based on a qualified appraisal made by a

qualified appraiser and the taxpayer made a good faith investigation of the value

of the contributed property. Sec. 6664(c)(2); see also sec. 1.6664-4(h), Income

Tax Regs. The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause

and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the

pertinent facts and circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

Reliance upon the advice of a tax professional may establish reasonable

cause and good faith for the purpose of avoiding liability for the section 6662(a)

penalty. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250 (1985). Whether

reasonable cause exists when a taxpayer has relied on a tax professional to prepare

a return must be determined on the basis of all of the facts and circumstances. See
 - 56 -

[*56] Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 98 (2000), aff’d,

299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002). The taxpayer claiming reliance on a tax professional

must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she satisfies each prong of

the following test: “(1) the adviser was a competent professional who had

sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer provided necessary and

accurate information to the adviser, and (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good

faith on the adviser’s judgment.” Id. at 99.

Petitioners are not financially sophisticated taxpayers. Neither Dr. Zarlengo

nor Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo has a background in tax, finance, or accounting. When

Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo brought the idea of donating a conservation easement on the

townhouse to Dr. Zarlengo’s attention, he consulted with Mr. Cirillo, his longtime

accountant, about its legitimacy. Mr. Cirllio, a licensed C.P.A. in New York, had

approximately 20 years of experience in accounting at the time. He was initially

unfamiliar with conservation easements, but he read an article on the subject in the

Journal of Accountancy and researched the relevant substantiation requirements

before getting back to Dr. Zarlengo. We find that Mr. Cirillo was a competent

accountant with sufficient expertise to justify reliance.

Mr. Cirillo explained to Dr. Zarlengo that the deduction was, in fact,

legitimate and that petitioners would need to obtain an appraisal and Forms 8283
 - 57 -

[*57] to attach to their tax returns. Mr. Cirillo later prepared Dr. Zarlengo’s joint

tax return for 2004 and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s tax return for 2005. Dr. Zarlengo

provided him with all of the necessary information relevant to the charitable

contribution deductions at issue, including the appraisal report, the appraisal

summary, and the conservation deed. Nothing in these documents gave Mr.

Cirillo cause for concern as to the accuracy of the appraised value of the

conservation easement. We find that petitioners relied on Mr. Cirillo’s advice.

We further find that petitioners acted in good faith. The term “good faith”

appears in both section 6664(c)(1) and (2)(B). Although the term has no precise

definition, it means, among other things, “honesty in belief”. Black’s Law

Dictionary 762 (9th ed. 2009). Petitioners honestly believed that the conservation

easement was a completed gift in 2004. On December 10, 2004, they received a

letter from the Trust stating that the enclosed appraisal summary was “to be

included in your income tax submission for the year 2004.” Mr. Cirillo also

informed Dr. Zarlengo that he could claim part of the deduction for the

conservation easement in 2004 and carry the excess forward.

The amount of the deduction that Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo

each claimed on their 2004 returns was exactly half of Mr. Haims’ appraised

value, representing their 50% interests in the conservation easement. The parties
 - 58 -

[*58] have stipulated that Mr. Haims is a qualified appraiser, and we have already

found that his appraisal report was a qualified appraisal. See supra pp. 28-41.

Petitioners made a good faith investigation into the value of the conservation

easement by obtaining Mr. Haims’ appraisal and Mr. Cirillo’s advice.

We find that Dr. Zarlengo and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo have met the

reasonable cause and good faith defense for 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Accordingly, they are not liable for accuracy-related penalties with respect to the

conservation easement for those years.

3. Post-PPA Returns

Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s 2006 and 2007 returns were filed after July 25,

2006. Therefore, the reasonable cause and good faith rules, as amended by the

PPA, apply to those returns. In Chandler v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. ___, ___

(slip op. at 24-26) (May 14, 2014), the taxpayers argued that applying the

amended reasonable cause and good faith rules to their 2006 tax return (which was

filed after July 25, 2006) would amount to a retroactive application of the PPA

because a portion of the underpayment appearing on their 2006 return resulted

from the carryover of a charitable contribution deduction which originated on their

2004 return. Id. We rejected their argument and held that the “plain language” of
 - 59 -

[*59] the PPA makes the amended reasonable cause and good faith rules

“applicable for all returns filed after July 25, 2006.” Id. at ___ (slip op. at 25).

In Chandler we had no need to consider whether the pre-PPA thresholds or

the post-PPA thresholds applied to the taxpayers’ 2006 return because the

taxpayers had failed to prove that the conservation easement they donated had any

value, and thus under both thresholds the taxpayers’ valuation misstatement would

have been a gross valuation misstatement. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 24). Likewise, in

these cases we need not decide that question as to Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s 2006

and 2007 returns because respondent has met his burden of production as to the

gross valuation misstatement penalties with respect to Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo for

2006 and 2007 regardless of whether the 400% or 200% threshold applies.22 Ms.

22
Under sec. 1.6662-5(c)(1), Income Tax Regs., the penalty for a
substantial or gross valuation misstatement applies to any portion of an
underpayment for a year to which a deduction is carried that is attributable to a
substantial or gross valuation misstatement for the year in which the carryback or
carryover of the deduction arises. Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo first claimed a deduction
for the conservation easement on her 2004 return based on a $660,000 valuation.
We found that the actual value of the conservation easement was $157,500 as of
January 26, 2005. See supra p. 52. Because the conservation easement was not
yet effective under New York law in 2004 and because the housing market in New
York City was trending upward at the time, it is clear that the conservation
easement did not reduce the value of the townhouse by more than $157,500 in
2004. Thus, the valuation misstatement on Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo’s 2004 return
meets or exceeds the 400% threshold irrespective of whether the conservation
easement was worth zero, $157,500, or some amount in between ($660,000 /
(continued...)
 - 60 -

[*60] Sandin-Zarlengo may not raise a reasonable cause and good faith defense for

2006 or 2007 because the PPA makes the gross valuation misstatement penalty a

strict liability penalty with respect to charitable deduction property. See sec.

6664(c)(1) and (2).

VI. Conclusion

Dr. Zarlengo is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for the

conservation easement for 2004. Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo is not entitled to the

carryover deductions for 2005-07 that she claimed with respect to the conservation

easement. She is, however, entitled to a deduction of $78,750 for 2005, and she

may carry forward any unused portion. Dr. Zarlengo is not liable for a penalty for

2004, and Ms. Sandin-Zarlengo is not liable for a penalty for 2005. Ms. Sandin-

Zarlengo is liable for 40% gross valuation misstatement penalties for 2006 and

2007 with respect to any underpayments for those years which are attributable to

her misvaluation of the conservation easement, provided that the applicable dollar

limitation set forth in section 6662(e)(2) is satisfied.

22
(...continued)
$157,500 = 419%). See also sec. 1.6662-5(g), Income Tax Regs. (“The value or
adjusted basis claimed on a return of any property with a correct value or adjusted
basis of zero is considered to be 400 percent or more of the correct amount.”).
 - 61 -

[*61] We have considered all the arguments of the parties, and, to the extent we

have not addressed them, we find them to be irrelevant, moot or meritless.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decisions will be entered

under Rule 155.