1. Appendix
A
1
Appendix
A
Table
of
§
170(h)
Deduction
Cases
I.
Table
Structure
The
Table
below
lists
the
cases
involving
challenges
to
charitable
income
tax
deductions
claimed
with
respect
to
conservation
easement
donations.
Given
that
§
170(h)
and
the
Treasury
Regulations
are
effective
only
for
transfers
made
on
or
after
December
18,
1980,1
the
cases
are
separated
into
two
groups:
1.
those
involving
donations
made
before
the
effective
date
of
§
170(h)
(pre-­‐§
170(h)
cases)
and
2.
those
involving
donations
made
on
or
after
the
effective
date
of
§
170(h)
(post-­‐§
170(h)
cases).
Substantial
changes
were
made
to
the
deduction
provision
with
the
enactment
of
§
170(h)
in
1980.
Accordingly,
the
law
in
effect
on
the
date
of
the
donation
may
be
an
important
factor
in
analyzing
the
relevance
of
an
older
case
to
a
current
controversy.2
II.
Precedential
Value
of
Tax
Court
Cases
The
Tax
Court
issues
several
different
types
of
opinions,
the
precedential
value
of
which
differs.
1.
Summary
Opinions.
Certain
disputes
(for
example,
disputes
involving
deficiencies
of
$50,000
or
less
for
each
year
at
issue)
qualify
for
simplified
or
“S
case”
procedures.
The
Tax
Court
generally
issues
Summary
Opinions
in
these
cases,
and
Summary
Opinions
cannot
be
relied
on
as
precedent
or
appealed.
2.
Regular
Opinions
and
Memorandum
Opinions.
The
Tax
Court
generally
issues
two
types
of
opinions
in
cases
that
are
not
“S”
cases.
a.
Opinions,
sometimes
referred
to
as
“Regular
Opinions,”
(cited
as
“T.C.”)
are
generally
issued
in
cases
that
the
Tax
Court
believes
involve
sufficiently
important
legal
issues
or
principles.
Regular
Opinions
can
be
1
Pub.
L.
96-­‐541,
94
Stat.
3206,
§6(d).
Treas.
Reg.
§
1.170A-­‐14(j).
The
mortgage
subordination,
division
of
proceeds,
baseline
documentation,
and
donee
notification,
access,
and
enforcement
rights
requirements
2
For
example,
cases
involving
interpretation
of
the
deduction
provision
in
effect
before
§
170(h)
was
enacted
should
not
be
relied
upon
in
interpreting
new
requirements
added
to
the
deduction
provision
in
1980
to
curb
abuses
and
ensure
protection
of
the
federal
investment,
such
as
§
170(h)(5)(A)’s
new
“protected-­‐in-­‐perpetuity”
requirement.
On
the
other,
hand,
some
of
the
general
rules
governing
valuation
discussed
in
the
older
cases
are
still
relevant
to
current
controversies.

2. Appendix
A
2
cited
as
legal
authority
and
appealed,
and
the
Tax
Court
treats
them
as
binding
precedent.
b.
Memorandum
Opinions
(cited
at
“T.C.
Memo.”)
are
generally
issued
in
cases
that
do
not
involve
novel
legal
issues
and,
instead,
address
situations
where
the
law
is
settled
or
factually
driven.
Memorandum
Opinions
can
be
cited
as
legal
authority
and
appealed,
but
the
Tax
Court
does
not
treat
them
as
binding
precedent.
The
Chief
Judge
of
the
Tax
Court
decides
whether
an
opinion
will
be
issued
as
a
Regular
Opinion
or
a
Memorandum
Opinion.
3.
Bench
Opinions.
A
Tax
Court
judge
is
authorized
to
issue
a
Bench
Opinion
in
an
S
case
or
a
regular
case
when
the
judge
is
“satisfied
as
to
the
factual
conclusions
to
be
reached
in
the
case
and
that
the
law
to
be
applied
thereto
is
clear.”
To
issue
a
Bench
Opinion,
the
judge
orally
states
the
findings
of
fact
and
the
opinion
in
court
during
the
trial
session
and
a
transcript
reflecting
the
findings
of
fact
and
opinion
is
sent
to
the
parties.
Bench
Opinions
cannot
be
relied
upon
as
precedent.
III.
Tax
Court
Opinions
T.C.
and
T.C.
Memo.
Opinions
starting
09/25/95
and
Summary
Opinions
starting
01/01/01
are
available
at
https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/OpinionSearch.aspx.

3. Appendix
A
3
Pre-­‐§
170(h)
Cases
(In
Order
of
Final
Opinion
Date)
Date
of
Donation
Thayer
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1977-­‐370
1969
Todd
v.
U.S.,
617
F.
Supp.
253
(W.D.
Pa.
1985)
1979
Hilborn
v.
Comm'r,
85
T.C.
677
(1985)
1979
Stanley
Works
v.
Comm’r,
87
T.C.
389
(1986)
1977
Akers
v.
Comm’r,
799
F.2d
243
(6th
Cir.
1986),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
1984-­‐490
1977
Symington
v.
Comm'r,
87
T.C.
892
(1986)
1979
Stotler
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1987-­‐275
1979
Fannon
v.
Comm'r,
842
F.2d
1290
(4th
Cir.
1988)
(unpublished),
modifying
T.C.
Memo.
1986-­‐572
1979
Fannon
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1989-­‐136
1978
Dennis
v.
U.S.,
70
A.F.T.R.
2d
92-­‐5946
(E.D.
Va.
1992)
Nov.
8,
1980
McLennan
v.
U.S.,
994
F.2d
839
(Fed.
Cir.
1993),
aff’g
24
Cl.
Ct.
102
(1991)
and
23
Cl.
Ct.
99
(1991)
Nov.
10,
1980
Post-­‐§
170(h)
Cases
(In
Order
of
Final
Opinion
Date)
§
170(h)
and
the
Treasury
Regulations
are
effective
only
for
transfers
made
on
or
after
Dec.
18,
1980.3
1988
through
2000
Nicoladis
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
1988-­‐163
1981
Losch
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1988-­‐230
Dec.
24,
1980
Richmond
v.
U.S.,
699
F.
Supp.
578
(E.D.
La.
1988)
Dec.
29,
1980
Higgins
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
1990-­‐103
1981
Dorsey
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1990-­‐242
1981
Griffin
v.
Comm’r,
911
F.2d
1124
(5th
Cir.
1990),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
1989-­‐130
1981
Schapiro
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
1991-­‐128
1981,
1984
Clemens
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1992-­‐436
1982
Schwab
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
1994-­‐232
1983
Satullo
v.
Comm’r,
67
F.3d
314,
76
A.F.T.R.2d
6536
(11th
Cir.
1995),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
1993-­‐614
1985
Great
Northern
Nekoosa
v.
U.S.,
38
Fed.
Cl.
645
(1997)
1981
Johnston
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
1997-­‐475
1989
Browning
v.
Comm'r,
109
T.C.
303
(1997)
1990
Strasburg
v.
Comm'r,
T.C.
Memo.
2000-­‐94
1993,
1994
3
See
supra
note
1
for
exceptions
to
the
effective
date
for
some
of
the
Treasury
Regulation
provisions.

4. Appendix
A
4
2006
Turner
v.
Comm’r,
126
T.C.
299
(2006)
1999
Ney
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Summ.
Op.
2006-­‐154
(2006)
2001
Glass
v.
Comm’r,
471
F.3d
698
(6th
Cir.
2006)
(Glass
II),
aff’g
124
T.C.
258
(2005)
(Glass
I)
1992,
1993
Goldsby
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2006-­‐274
2000
2009
Bruzewicz
v.
U.S.,
604
F.
Supp.
2d
1197
(N.D.
Ill.
2009)
2002
Hughes
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2009-­‐94
2000
Kiva
Dunes
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2009-­‐145
2002
2010
Lord
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2010-­‐196
1999
Evans
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2010-­‐207
2004
2011
Schrimsher
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2011-­‐71
2004
Boltar
v.
Comm’r,
136
T.C.
326
(2011)
2003
1982
East
LLC
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2011-­‐84
2004
Comm’r
v.
Simmons,
646
F.3d
6
(D.C.
Cir.
2011)
(Simmons
II),
aff’g
Simmons
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2009-­‐208
(Simmons
I)
2003,
2004
Didonato
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2011-­‐153
2004
Herman
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Bench
Op.
(Sept.
22,
2011)
(Herman
II),
addressing
remaining
issues
in
T.C.
Memo.
2009-­‐205
(Herman
I)
2003
2012
Butler
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐72
2003,
2004
Dunlap
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐126
2003
Wall
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐169
2003
Averyt
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐198
2004
Rothman
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐218
(Rothman
II),
vacating
in
part
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐163
(Rothman
I)
2004
Trout
Ranch
v.
Comm’r,
493
Fed.
Appx.
944
(10th
Cir.
2012)
(unpublished)
(Trout
Ranch
II),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
2010-­‐283
(Trout
Ranch
I)
2003
Foster
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Summ.
Op.
2012-­‐90
2003
RP
Golf,
LLC
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐282
2003
Irby
v.
Comm’r,
139
T.C.
371
(2012)
2003,
2004
Minnick
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐345
2006

5. Appendix
A
5
2013
Pollard
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐38
2003
Graev
v.
Comm’r,
140
T.C.
377
(2013)
2004
Pesky
v.
U.S.,
2013
WL
3457691
(D.
Idaho,
July
8,
2013),
following
2013
WL
97752
(D.
Idaho,
Jan.
7,
2013)
2002
Carpenter
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐172
(Carpenter
II),
denying
reconsideration
of
and
supplementing
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐1
(Carpenter
I)
2003
Friedberg
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐224
(Friedberg
II),
reversing
in
part
and
supplementing
T.C.
Memo.
2011-­‐238
(Friedberg
I)
2003
Gorra
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐254
2006
61
York
Acquisition,
LLC
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐266
2006
2014
Mountanos
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2014-­‐38
(Mountanos
II),
denying
reconsideration
of
and
supplementing
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐138
(Mountanos
I)
2005
Esgar
Corp.
v.
Comm’r,
744
F.3d
648
(10th
Cir.
2014)
(Esgar
II),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
2012-­‐35
(Esgar
I)
and
Tempel
v.
Comm'r,
136
T.C.
341
(2011)
2004
Wachter
v.
Comm’r,
142
T.C.
140
(2014)
2004,
2005,
2006
Palmer
Ranch
Holdings,
Ltd.
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo
2014-­‐79
2006
Chandler
v.
Comm’r,
142
T.C.
279
(2014)
2004,
2005
Whitehouse
Hotel,
LP
v.
Comm’r,
755
F.3d
236
(5th
Cir.
2014)
(Whitehouse
IV),
aff’g
in
part
and
vacating
in
part
139
T.C.
304
(2012)
(Whitehouse
III),
on
remand
from
615
F.3d
321
(5th
Cir.
2010)
(Whitehouse
II),
vacating
and
remanding
131
T.C.
112
(2008)
(Whitehouse
I)
1997
Scheidelman
v.
Comm’r,
755
F.3d
148
(2d
Cir.
2014)
(Scheidelman
IV),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐18
(Scheidelman
III),
on
remand
from
682
F.3d
189
(2d
Cir.
2012)
(Scheidelman
II),
vacating
and
remanding
T.C.
Memo.
2010-­‐151
(Scheidelman
I)
2004
Seventeen
Seventy
Sherman
Street
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2014-­‐124
2003
Schmidt
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2014-­‐159
2003
Zarlengo
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2014-­‐161
2005
Reisner
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2014-­‐230
2004
Belk
v.
Comm’r,
774
F.3d
221
(4th
Cir.
2014)
(Belk
III),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo
2013-­‐154
(Belk
II),
denying
reconsideration
of
and
supplementing
140
T.C.
1
(2013)
(Belk
I)
2004

6. Appendix
A
6
2015
Mitchell
v.
Comm’r,
775
F.3d
1243
(10th
Cir.
2015)
(Mitchell
III),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
2013-­‐204
(Mitchell
II),
denying
reconsideration
and
supplementing
138
T.C.
324
(2012)
(Mitchell
I)
2003
Balsam
Mountain
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2015-­‐43
2003
SWF
Real
Estate
LLC
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2015-­‐63
2005
Kaufman
v.
Comm’r,
784
F.3d.
56
(1st
Cir.
2015)
(Kaufman
V),
aff’g
T.C.
Memo.
2014-­‐52
(Kaufman
IV),
on
remand
from
687
F.3d.
21
(1st
Cir.
2012)
(Kaufman
III),
vacating
and
remanding
in
part
136
T.C.
294
(2011)
(Kaufman
II)
and
134
T.C.
182
(2010)
(Kaufman
I)
2003
Costello
v.
Comm’r,
T.C.
Memo.
2015-­‐87
2006