Qualified Conservation Restrictions: Recollections of and Reflections on the Origins of Section 170(h)
Abstract
It has been over thirty years since Congress added to the Internal Revenue Code section 170(h), which allows a deduction for contributions to charity of “qualified conservation restrictions,” commonly known as “conservation easements”. That provision was adopted over the objections of the Treasury, who had expressed reservations of both a conceptual and practical nature about the legislation, which the Treasury viewed as more than ordinarily vulnerable to abuse. I was invited to participate in this symposium, not because I have any expertise in working with these restrictions—I don’t—but to provide some perspective on what might have motivated the Treasury thirty-plus years ago to take the position that it did, on what is very popular legislation among the conservation and historic preservation communities. I think of myself as no better than the second most qualified individual to fill that role. The most qualified, in my opinion, is Professor Daniel Halperin, who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy when the legislation was under deliberation, testified twice on versions of the proposed legislation, and has recently written in this area.3 But I was there at the time; I did work with Professor Halperin on his testimony and the legislation; and so I am able to offer a (sometimes more and sometimes less vaguely recalled) first-hand account of what was happening then. In some respects I find it advantageous not to have worked in this area in the intervening years. The invitation to participate in this symposium offered me an opportunity to reflect on whether I think the positions the Treasury took then rested on well-founded concerns, and to speculate on whether, if I had known then what I have learned since, I would have recommended that the Treasury approach the matter in exactly the fashion that it did.
Published
2014-03-14
How to Cite
.
Qualified Conservation Restrictions: Recollections of and Reflections on the Origins of Section 170(h).
Utah Environmental Law Review, [S.l.], v. 33, n. 1, mar. 2014.
Available at: <https://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/view/1148>. Date accessed: 07 nov. 2024.
Issue
Section
Symposium
Copyright Utah Law Review All Rights Reserved.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).