A syndicated conservation easement is an investment scheme where a promoter brings together a group of investors to buy land, then donates a conservation easement on that land to a charity so the investors can claim massive tax deductions. The problem: the IRS has labeled these transactions abusive, and the deductions are often wildly inflated, sometimes worth 5 to 10 times what investors actually paid.
Between 2010 and 2017, syndicated conservation easement transactions generated $26.8 billion in questionable tax deductions that mostly went to wealthy people. The IRS has now launched coordinated audits, criminal investigations, and tax court cases against thousands of investors and the promoters who sold them these deals.
What You’ll Learn
🎯 How syndicated conservation easements work and why promoters use them to sell fake deductions
📊 The federal law that allows them (Section 170(h) of the tax code) and why the 2.5 times rule exists
⚠️ Red flags that signal an abusive easement versus a legitimate one
💰 What penalties you face if caught—including 40% accuracy penalties and potential criminal charges
🏛️ Real-world scenarios showing how these schemes fail when the IRS audits them
Breaking Down Syndicated Conservation Easements: The Core Mechanics
A syndicated conservation easement sounds simple but is actually quite complex. Think of it like this: imagine five investors each put in $100,000 to a partnership. The partnership uses that $500,000 to buy rural land. Within months, a hired appraiser says that conservation easement on the land is worth $1.5 million. The partnership donates the easement to a land trust, then passes a $300,000 tax deduction to each investor. Each investor claimed back nearly three times their money in deductions.
The word “syndicated” means the deal is syndicated—like a TV show that gets sold to multiple stations. A promoter packages up the land deal and sells pieces of it to many investors who have nothing to do with each other. These investors do not know each other and have no real involvement in managing the land. They are just buying the tax deduction.
The word “conservation easement” is itself neutral and legitimate. A conservation easement is a legal agreement where a landowner gives up certain rights to develop their land. For instance, you might promise never to build more than one house on your 100-acre property, or you might promise to keep it as farmland forever. The government or a land trust holds this easement and can sue you if you violate it. Legitimate easements protect real environmental value.
Federal law allows conservation easements through Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. This law, passed in 1980, lets landowners deduct the value of a conservation easement as a charitable donation. Congress created this to encourage people to protect their land voluntarily instead of the government having to buy the land. If your land is worth $500,000 without any restrictions, but with a conservation easement it is worth $300,000, you can deduct the $200,000 difference as a charitable gift.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made the law even more generous for a short time. It raised the annual deduction limit from 30% of your adjusted gross income to 50%, and for farmers and ranchers it went to 100%. This encouraged real conservation donors. However, it also opened the door for abuse because the larger deductions made the tax benefits more attractive to high-income investors who wanted to shelter money.
The Federal Foundation: Section 170(h) and Its Requirements
To get a valid deduction under Section 170(h), four main things must be true. First, you must donate a qualified real property interest—this can be a full easement or even just the right to restrict development. Second, the restriction must be permanent (what lawyers call “in perpetuity”). Third, you must donate to a qualified organization, usually a land trust or government agency with Section 501(c)(3) status.
Fourth, and this is critical, the easement must be exclusively for conservation purposes. The IRS lists four acceptable conservation purposes: outdoor recreation, protecting wildlife habitat, preserving open space that yields public benefit, or preserving historic structures. You cannot donate an easement just to reduce your taxes. The easement must actually protect something real.
The valuation must use a “qualified appraisal” done by a “qualified appraiser.” This is not just any appraiser—the person must meet specific IRS credentials and cannot have conflicts of interest. The appraisal uses what is called the “before and after” method. An appraiser values the land as if there are no restrictions (the “before” value). Then the appraiser values the same land with the conservation easement in place (the “after” value). The difference is the easement’s value and becomes your deduction.
You must complete IRS Form 8283, which documents your gift. For donations over $5,000, you need Section B of Form 8283, signed by both the appraiser and the charitable organization. You must also file a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the land trust confirming they received and accepted your donation.
In 2022, Congress passed the Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act, which added a crucial rule: if a partnership donates a conservation easement and the deduction exceeds 2.5 times the partners’ investment basis in the partnership, the deduction is automatically disallowed. This is called the “2.5 times rule.” For example, if all partners combined have a basis of $400,000 in the partnership, the partnership cannot claim more than $1 million in conservation easement deductions. If it does, the entire deduction gets thrown out.
There are three narrow exceptions to the 2.5 times rule. First, if the partnership holds the property for at least three years before donating the easement, the rule does not apply. Second, if the partnership is a “family partnership”—meaning all or nearly all owners are members of one family—the rule does not apply. Third, if the easement protects a certified historic structure, the rule does not apply.
State Laws and the Patchwork of Conservation Easement Rules
All 50 states have adopted some form of conservation easement law, though they vary significantly. The majority adopted either the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA) or a version based on it. This uniformity helps because conservation easements created in one state can be enforced across state lines and remain binding even if the land is sold.
However, state laws differ on important details. Some states allow conservation easements only through government agencies; others allow qualified nonprofits. Some states require a detailed management plan; others do not. Some states allow state tax credits for donating easements; others do not. This variation matters for syndicated deals because promoters often target states with looser rules or with generous state tax credits that stack on top of the federal deduction.
For example, New York allows conservation easements under Environmental Conservation Law Article 49, which requires the easement to protect scenic, open, historic, archaeological, architectural, or natural conditions. Colorado offers a state income tax credit of up to $260,000 for donating a conservation easement. Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina have seen heavy syndicated easement activity because they have agricultural land, loose enforcement, and active promoter networks.
A legitimate conservation easement holder—usually a land trust—must have authority to defend the easement. They must be able to go to court and stop a landowner from violating the terms. They must monitor the property regularly, often annually. They must prepare baseline documentation describing the property’s condition at the time the easement is granted. This documentation proves what the land looked like before the restriction, which helps enforce the easement later.
For syndicated deals, these state-level requirements become problems. Many promoter-affiliated land trusts do not have real monitoring programs. Some are shell organizations created just to accept easements. They may not have the resources or willingness to enforce restrictions. This creates situations where an “easement holder” accepts an easement for a farm but then does nothing to stop the owner from developing it, mining it, or violating the terms.
The Anatomy of an Abusive Syndicated Deal: Step by Step
An abusive syndicated easement deal typically follows this pattern. First, a promoter or intermediary identifies raw land—often farmland or rural property in places like Tennessee, Georgia, or North Carolina. The land might cost $5 million. The promoter then creates a partnership or LLC and recruits investors, often through targeted marketing to high-income professionals like doctors, lawyers, or business owners.
Each investor puts in money—say $100,000 to $500,000—buying a partnership interest. The partnership buys the land for $5 million using investor cash. The promoter has now raised $5 million from investors and collected fees—sometimes 10% to 20% of the capital raised. Now comes the crucial step: the partnership hires an appraiser, often one recommended by the promoter or with prior relationships to the promoter.
This appraiser performs what should be an independent valuation but is often heavily influenced by the promoter’s expectations. The appraiser estimates the land’s unrestricted “highest and best use” value. For farmland, maybe this would be development potential. Even if the land has never been developed and is zoned agricultural, the appraiser might project that it could be developed as a residential subdivision. The appraiser applies speculative assumptions about future demand, absorption rates, and pricing.
Then the appraiser values the same land after the conservation easement is placed on it. Because the easement prevents development, the “after” value drops significantly. If the “before” value is $5 million but the “after” value is only $1.5 million, the easement is worth $3.5 million. The partnership donates the easement to a land trust and claims a $3.5 million charitable deduction.
This $3.5 million deduction then flows through to the investors. If there are five investors, each gets a $700,000 deduction. Each investor had basis (their cost) of $100,000 in the partnership. Now they claim a $700,000 deduction on a $100,000 investment—a 7 times ratio. Assuming a 35% tax bracket, each investor saves $245,000 in taxes on their $100,000 investment. They get their money back in tax savings within months.
Promoters marketed these deals aggressively, often promising specific tax savings. Promotional materials might say: “Invest $100,000 and claim $300,000 to $500,000 in deductions.” The IRS has documented that promotional materials often promised deductions of at least 2.5 times the investment, which is precisely what triggered the 2.5 times rule.
The problem is the appraisal is often deeply flawed. The appraiser might use speculative “highest and best use” analysis that assumes development that will never happen. They might use inadequate comparable sales—perhaps comparing farmland to urban development potential. They might ignore the land’s actual zoning and legal restrictions. They might use aggressive assumptions about timing, market absorption, and buyer demand. They might fail to apply any discount for the fact that development is merely possible, not probable.
In some cases, the partnership buys the land just months before the appraisal, and the price paid becomes a reality check. If the partnership bought the land for $5 million but then claims it is worth $15 million before the easement, that is a 300% markup in months with no market event to justify it. The Tax Court has flagged this as a major red flag in cases like Excelsior Aggregates.
The IRS Crackdown: From Notice to Listed Transactions to Final Regulations
The IRS did not ignore these abuses. In December 2016, the IRS issued Notice 2017-10, officially designating certain syndicated conservation easement transactions as “listed transactions.” A listed transaction is tax-speak for a transaction that the IRS considers abusive and that participants must report to the IRS on their tax returns.
Under the notice, a syndicated conservation easement transaction is considered listed if: promotional materials offered investors the possibility of claiming a deduction worth at least 2.5 times their investment, the investor became a partner in a pass-through entity, the entity donated a conservation easement, and the investor claimed the deduction. If your deal matched this pattern, you were supposed to report it as a listed transaction and attach disclosure forms.
In November 2019, the IRS announced a major enforcement surge. The agency launched coordinated audits across three divisions: the Small Business and Self-Employed Division (which audits individuals and small businesses), the Large Business and International Division (which audits corporations), and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division (which audits charities and their partners). Criminal investigations were also initiated.
IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig stated publicly: “We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions.” The agency said it was pursuing everyone: promoters, appraisers, land trusts that accepted the easements, and the investors themselves. It emphasized that “every available enforcement option” would be used, including criminal prosecution.
In October 2024, the IRS issued final regulations under Treasury Regulation Section 1.6011-4, formally designating syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions. The final regulations clarify and refine the Notice 2017-10 standards.
The 2024 regulations define a syndicated conservation easement transaction more precisely. They state that if promotional materials offer less than a 2.5 times deduction but the taxpayer’s actual allocation exceeds 2.5 times, a rebuttable presumption arises that the transaction is a listed transaction. They also state that the IRS will look through attempts to avoid the rule through multiple transactions or partnerships. If a promoter structures multiple smaller easements to stay under the 2.5 times threshold, the IRS can recharacterize them as a single transaction.
The regulations require material advisors (tax professionals who are paid fees for advising on the transaction) and promoters to file Forms 8918 and other disclosure forms with the IRS. Participants must file Forms 8886 with their tax returns. Failure to file these forms can result in penalties starting at $200 per failure and going up to $10,000 or more.
Three Real-World Scenarios: Where Deals Went Wrong
Scenario 1: The Inflated Appraisal
A Tennessee partnership buys 500 acres of raw farmland for $2.5 million. The land is in a rural area, zoned agricultural only, with no infrastructure. The partnership hires an appraiser who values the land at $7 million “highest and best use” based on hypothetical future subdivision development. The appraiser applies aggressive assumptions about market timing and development feasibility. The appraiser then values the encumbered land at $2.2 million, claiming a $4.8 million easement value. Five investors each claim $960,000 in deductions on $500,000 investments.
| Action | Consequence |
|---|---|
| IRS audits the appraisal | Appraiser cannot defend “highest and best use” assumptions using actual comparable development sales; land never sold for $7 million; comparable rural farmland sold for $3-4 million |
| IRS obtains independent appraisal | Independent appraiser values easement at only $600,000 because realistic highest and best use is as ongoing farmland, not development |
| IRS disallows deduction | Partnership loses entire $4.8 million deduction; each investor loses $960,000 deduction; IRS asserts 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty because claimed value ($4.8M) exceeded correct value ($600K) by 800% |
| Investor tax impact | Investor owes back taxes on $960,000 deduction at 37% rate = $355,200; plus 40% penalty = $142,080; plus interest on back taxes = roughly $500,000+ total liability |
Scenario 2: The Promoter-Influenced Land Trust
A Georgia partnership acquires 300 acres of mixed forest and open land. The partnership partners with a small land trust that was created just three years ago specifically to accept conservation easements. The land trust has two part-time employees and no real monitoring program. The partnership’s appraiser values the easement at $3.2 million. The land trust accepts the easement with no independent review.
| Action | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Investor files tax return claiming $640,000 deduction | IRS begins examination and reviews land trust documents |
| IRS interviews land trust | Land trust admits it conducted no independent appraisal review; admits the partnership recommended the appraiser; admits no baseline documentation was completed; admits no monitoring has occurred |
| IRS challenges easement as not “exclusively” for conservation | With no real monitoring and poor documentation, IRS argues the easement was created primarily for tax benefit, not conservation; the substantial benefit test fails |
| Deduction is disallowed entirely | Not just reduced—completely disallowed because perpetuity requirement and exclusive conservation purpose tests failed; investor loses entire deduction plus 20% accuracy penalty |
Scenario 3: The Reserved Rights Problem
A North Carolina partnership donates an easement on 200 acres of habitat land. However, the deed contains language allowing the owner to continue “reasonable agricultural uses” without defining what “reasonable” means. It also reserves the right to build one “family residence” on five acres. It allows “ongoing forestry” without a management plan requirement.
| Action | Consequence |
|---|---|
| IRS examines deed language | Reserved rights are too vague and too broad; they undermine the conservation purpose |
| IRS argues reserved rights were never relinquished | Because the owner never gave up clear, definite rights, the charitable contribution failed; the owner is not actually giving anything away |
| Tax Court agrees | In Carter v. Commissioner and similar cases, courts have disallowed deductions when reserved rights were vague or when they effectively allowed continued development |
| Result | Entire deduction denied; 40% penalty applies; investor faces $400,000+ liability on $100,000 investment plus penalties |
Mistakes to Avoid
Mistake 1: Accepting Promotional Promises About Tax Savings
If a promoter guarantees or strongly promises you will save a specific amount in taxes—like “$300,000 tax savings on your $100,000 investment”—that is a massive red flag. Promoters are marketing a product and using tax benefits as the primary sales hook. Legitimate conservation easements focus on conservation value, not tax optimization. The promoter’s goal is to collect fees; your goal should be genuine conservation.
Mistake 2: Using an Appraiser Recommended by the Promoter
The appraiser should be independent and have no financial interest in the outcome. If the promoter recommends the appraiser, has a relationship with the appraiser, or pays the appraiser directly, independence is compromised. You should hire your own appraiser from a firm without ties to the promoter. Ask your appraiser directly: “Have you worked with this promoter before? Do you get repeat business from similar deals?” If yes to either, find someone else.
Mistake 3: Ignoring Speculation in the Appraisal’s “Highest and Best Use”
Read the appraisal carefully. How does the appraiser justify the highest and best use? Are they relying on comparable sales that actually exist in the market? Or are they projecting speculative development that has never been demonstrated? If farmland that has always been farmland is valued at development rates with no approved development plan, that is a problem. Real development depends on infrastructure, zoning changes, market demand, and timing. Speculation alone is not sufficient.
Mistake 4: Investing Without Understanding the Land or the Easement Terms
You should know what you are actually buying. Visit the property. Understand the actual conservation values. Read the full easement deed before investing. What rights are reserved? What activities are prohibited? Are the restrictions real and permanent, or vague and loose? If you would not buy the land itself for investment, do not invest in the easement.
Mistake 5: Choosing a Land Trust Based on Promoter Recommendation
The land trust that holds the easement is critical. They are responsible for enforcement and monitoring. Are they established and reputable, with a track record of protecting lands? Do they have resources and staff dedicated to monitoring? Or are they a small organization created just to accept syndicated easements? Ask for their annual report, their monitoring procedures, and their financial statements. Contact their board chair independently. Check references.
Mistake 6: Failing to Report as a Listed Transaction
If you invested in a syndicated conservation easement deal, you are required to file Form 8886 with your tax return. This form tells the IRS you are claiming a deduction for a listed transaction. Failure to file Form 8886 triggers a $200 penalty per tax year, potentially much more if the IRS believes you were trying to hide the transaction.
Do’s and Don’ts
| Do | Reason |
|---|---|
| Do verify independent appraisals | The appraiser should have no financial relationship with promoters; ask your CPA to review the appraisal critically |
| Do demand comparable sales data | Real appraisals rely on comparable sales of similar properties; speculation and DCF projections alone are unreliable |
| Do visit the property yourself | See what you are giving up rights to; understand the actual conservation values |
| Do ask about the land trust’s monitoring | Request their monitoring reports, baseline documentation, and enforcement history |
| Do file Form 8886 | Report the transaction to the IRS if promotional materials mentioned a 2.5 times or higher deduction ratio |
| Don’t | Reason |
|---|---|
| Don’t rely on tax savings as the primary benefit | If the tax deduction is the main selling point, the easement may not meet the “exclusive conservation purposes” requirement |
| Don’t accept the appraiser recommended by promoters | Hire your own independent appraiser with no ties to the promoter |
| Don’t invest based on promotional materials alone | Request the actual appraisal, the easement deed, and the land trust’s financial statements and monitoring plan |
| Don’t skip the baseline documentation | This document proves what the land looked like; it protects both you and the conservation easement |
| Don’t assume the land trust will enforce the easement | Ask for their enforcement record; a passive land trust is a problem |
Pros and Cons of Conservation Easements (Legitimate vs. Syndicated)
| Element | Legitimate Easement | Syndicated Easement |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Protect real environmental or historic values | Maximize tax deductions for investors |
| Appraisal Process | Independent appraiser uses comparable sales data | Appraiser often influenced by promoter; relies on speculation |
| Deduction Ratio | Typically 20% to 65% reduction in property value | Often claims 70% to 99% reduction; or 5-10 times investor basis |
| Land Trust Role | Established nonprofit with real monitoring program | Often new entity created solely for syndicated easements |
| Deed Language | Clear, specific restrictions that actually protect conservation values | Vague language; reserved rights that undermine conservation |
| IRS Scrutiny | Generally accepted if documentation is complete | Heavily audited; disallowances common |
| Investor Knowledge | Investor understands and cares about conservation | Investor motivated primarily by tax savings; may not visit property |
Common Penalties and Legal Consequences
If the IRS determines you claimed an inflated conservation easement deduction, penalties stack quickly. The most common penalty is the 40% accuracy-related penalty for gross valuation misstatement. This applies when your claimed value exceeds 200% of the actual correct value. A claimed value of $2 million on a correct value of $500,000 triggers this penalty.
The 20% accuracy-related penalty for substantial misstatement applies when the claimed value is between 150% and 200% of correct value. Additional penalties apply if you failed to file required forms like Form 8283 Section B or Form 8886.
For appraisers who provide overvalued appraisals, penalties can reach 40% of the overstatement. For promoters and material advisors, penalties for promoting abusive tax shelters can reach 75% of gross income derived from promoting the shelter.
Criminal prosecution is also possible. The IRS Criminal Investigation division has brought charges against promoters, appraisers, and land trust operators. In recent years, several individuals have pleaded guilty to tax crimes related to syndicated conservation easements.
Back taxes owed plus penalties plus interest can create catastrophic liability. A $500,000 overstatement in a 37% bracket creates $185,000 in back taxes, plus $74,000 in penalties (40%), plus interest at 8% annually. On a $100,000 initial investment, this easily creates liability exceeding the original investment.
Form 8283 and Reporting Requirements
If you claim a charitable contribution deduction of more than $500 for property other than cash, you must attach IRS Form 8283 to your tax return. For conservation easements valued above $5,000, you must complete Section B of Form 8283.
Section B requires:
- A detailed description of the property
- The conservation purpose(s) protected
- Your basis in the property (what you paid for it)
- The appraised value before and after the easement
- The name, address, and EIN of the qualified organization receiving the easement
- The appraiser’s certification with their signature and credentials
- The land trust’s contemporaneous written acknowledgment
Every line item matters. The IRS has taken the position that if any information on Form 8283 is incorrect or incomplete, the entire deduction can be disallowed, even if the conservation easement itself would have been valid. Missing the appraiser’s signature, an incomplete property description, or a missing land trust letter can result in a $0 deduction regardless of the underlying merits.
You must also file Form 8886 if the transaction is a listed transaction. This form requires disclosure of reportable transactions. Failure to file is a separate penalty violation.
Additionally, under Section 170(f)(19) of the tax code, partnerships must include a statement on their return confirming they made the conservation contribution and documenting the contribution amount. S corporations and other pass-through entities have similar requirements.
Key Players: Who’s Involved and Their Roles
Promoters and Syndicators market these deals. They identify property, recruit investors, negotiate with land trusts, and coordinate with appraisers. They charge fees—typically 10% to 20% of capital raised. Promoters profit from the deal regardless of whether investors face audit.
Appraisers value the property and the easement. In abusive deals, they are influenced by promoters and produce inflated valuations. Credible appraisers use comparable sales and real market data; questionable ones rely on speculation.
Land Trusts are nonprofit organizations that hold the easement and are supposed to monitor compliance. Legitimate land trusts are established nonprofits with expertise and resources. Abusive syndicates often use newly created shell organizations with no real monitoring capability.
Investors are the individuals who actually claim the deductions. High-income professionals—doctors, lawyers, business owners—are frequently targeted because they are in high tax brackets and want to reduce tax liability.
Tax Professionals including CPAs and tax attorneys may advise clients about the deals. Some inadvertently enable abuses by not questioning inflated appraisals or sketchy land trusts. Others knowingly promote them.
The IRS conducts audits, settles cases, and prosecutes violations. The agency has made syndicated conservation easements a priority compliance issue with specialized audit teams.
Court Rulings and Tax Court Precedent
Multiple Tax Court cases have rejected syndicated conservation easement deductions. In Carter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-21, the court disallowed a deduction because the easement deed reserved rights to build single-family residences on 11 “building areas.” The court found the reserved rights were too vague and essentially negated the conservation purpose.
In Railroad Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-22, the court disallowed a deduction because the deed provided that if the easement was ever extinguished, proceeds would be allocated based on the easement’s original value rather than a proportionate share. The court viewed this as a hidden benefit that violated the exclusive conservation purposes requirement.
In Wendell Falls Development, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-45, the court denied a deduction because the taxpayer expected to receive a substantial benefit. The taxpayer was developing a master-planned community and used a park easement to enhance the value of adjacent residential lots. The court found the taxpayer benefited from the easement donation, violating the charitable contribution requirement.
In Plateau Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-133, a rare win for a taxpayer, the Tax Court allowed penalties to be waived even though the deduction was disallowed because the taxpayer could reasonably rely on the land trust’s attorney to draft the deed properly.
These cases establish that courts scrutinize reserved rights carefully, demand that benefits genuinely flow to conservation rather than to the donor, and will overturn deductions when perpetuity or conservation purpose requirements are not met.
FAQs
Q: Can I invest in any conservation easement deal I find, or only specific ones?
A: No. Not all conservation easements are abusive, but syndicated deals with promised deductions of 2.5 times or more are flagged. Before investing, ask the promoter in writing if promotional materials promised a specific deduction-to-investment ratio. Request the appraisal, easement deed, and land trust’s monitoring plan. Do your own due diligence.
Q: What happens if I invested in a syndicated easement years ago and never reported it?
A: Yes. The IRS can audit back six years or longer. File an amended return (Form 1040-X) now, report it as a listed transaction on Form 8886, and consult a tax attorney immediately. The IRS has settlement initiatives that may reduce penalties.
Q: Is the 2.5 times rule a hard line, or can it be exceeded?
A: Hard line. If a partnership’s conservation easement deduction exceeds 2.5 times partners’ basis, the entire deduction is disallowed unless a narrow exception applies (three-year holding period, family partnership, or certified historic structure). No partial allowance.
Q: Can I deduct my investment cost in the partnership if the easement deduction is disallowed?
A: Yes. If the easement deduction fails, investors can typically deduct their cost basis in acquiring the partnership interest as a partnership loss. However, the loss may be suspended under passive activity loss rules if you are not a real estate professional.
Q: What should I do if I am being audited on a conservation easement?
A: Hire a tax attorney immediately. Conservation easement audits are complex. Provide complete documentation: the appraisal, the easement deed, Form 8283, the land trust’s letter, and all promotional materials. Consider whether the IRS’s settlement initiatives apply to your situation.
Related reading
- How to Avoid Capital Gains Tax on Sale of Commercial Property? + FAQs
- Can the IRS Challenge a Gifted Asset’s Valuation? + FAQs
- Is Donated Land Tax-Deductible? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- Do Conservation Easements Lower Capital Gains? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How Are Capital Gains Taxed When Subdividing Land for Sale? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- What Is a Qualified Conservation Easement? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- What Happens to an Easement When a Property Is Sold? (w/Examples) + FAQs