the reason that it is over three years is that there is a maximum against your income you can deduct for charitable purposes, when this amount is exceeded you can carry forward the excess for a period of time until the time period is exhausted or until the amount is exhausted. These rules are complicated. Normally if its just an appraisal issue, this get settled at some point however I have seen the IRS make a criminal case where they think the appraisal has been unjustly inflated and influenced.

If the area is already land marked the donation of the easement is not going to be worth much.

The case before the court awaiting a decision should let you know where it is going...

Posted by: smeyer418 at November 4, 2009 1:04 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

ps the 'burbs have these problems too...

Posted by: smeyer418 at November 3, 2009 2:37 PM in response to Illegal Dumping, Drugs, Rats

attend your local precinct community meeting they have them once a month. talk with the captain. If you can bring along some other people from your block...

you are in the 78th precinct.
Brooklyn 78th Precinct Police

* (718) 636-6411

65 6th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 1121

call cause I think the meeting is tonight!

Posted by: smeyer418 at November 3, 2009 2:34 PM in response to Illegal Dumping, Drugs, Rats

Don't worry about the tickets to out of state people when they tow the cars they have to pay them all. Residential parking permits will make people register their cars here. All of NY City is a tow zone but they rarely tow non-alternate street parkers(and never for meter violations) but they do for almost everything else so people without permits can expect a trip to the pound..

Posted by: smeyer418 at November 2, 2009 9:04 PM in response to Closing Bell: Windshield Spam Backfires

There is no current proposal for residential permit parking for NYC its only a false campaign issue....

Posted by: smeyer418 at November 2, 2009 4:08 PM in response to Closing Bell: Windshield Spam Backfires

yeah and its so easy to find a parking space now. A knee jerk reaction by a nee jerk.

How many people in brooklyn heights would pay $500 per year for a space?....how many pay more than $200-300 per month...

Posted by: smeyer418 at November 2, 2009 4:07 PM in response to Closing Bell: Windshield Spam Backfires

almost all the news helicopters are based in NJ(near Linden) so taxing the fuel is a non issue. Most of the noise you hear is NOT from Sightseeing helicopters but corporate ones. Sometimes they line up over Brooklyn Heights to land and hoover causing the noise problem....before you complain about the type of helicopter look first.

http://www.erhc.org/

here is a place to file complaints along of course with the FAA

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/frg/

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 26, 2009 4:44 PM in response to Copter Rage in Brooklyn Heights

The assessment used for tax rate may only increase 6% per year and 20% over 5 years for class 1a(1-3 family buildings)

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 22, 2009 3:31 PM in response to Certificate of Occupancy

They aren't talking about zone fares....yet. We did away with 2 zone fares years ago and I don't think that when they spend this vast amount of money its only going to give people a discount. I would hate to have them put in the technology that will allow both zone fares and higher rush hour ones.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 22, 2009 11:11 AM in response to Thursday Links

As to the comment about the MTA and off peak pricing...does any one think that lower prices on the subway will attract more riders now and get people out of cars? Its $2.25 without a metrocard discount. Parking in the city is expensive. all this will do is increase the deficit. Air swiping will cost hundred of millions of dollars and make it so much faster won't it.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 22, 2009 9:06 AM in response to Thursday Links

The Park has the big Mo! Momentum! Its moving along every day something new is going in.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 21, 2009 12:35 PM in response to Gatehouses Land in Brooklyn Bridge Park

when you post on an open board you are talking to everyone. You don't control the answers. You can control if you read them by not reading them. I know you are not talking to me its one of your character flaws to think you can control all the conversation.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 16, 2009 2:04 PM in response to Temperature in Apt.

there is somewhat a difference between using your judgment and saying someone has a character flaw....which you clearly do have. I am a landlord not responsible for every part of your comfort. I responsible to provide a habitable apartment with you have the right of quiet enjoyment. If the apartment is at 70 degrees or more as to heat I have met my obligation completely. If that means the tenant wants to move out at the end of the lease, I would rather have them move then expect something unreasonable from me.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 16, 2009 1:44 PM in response to Temperature in Apt.

opps I left off I am from Vulcan and prefer it at 105....

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 16, 2009 1:36 PM in response to Temperature in Apt.

character flaw? how judgmental! The law is 68/55. That is what they signed up for when they got the lease. Cranking the heat up to 80 is both expensive and wasteful(not very green of you). I have mine set at 70 6-11 and 60 thereafter, It rarely even comes on at night.

When I am cold or damp I put on a sweater.

Thank goodness you don't have to pay for their air conditioning. Get a thermometer and check if its more than 68 I would say sorry that is what is required. It was damp yesterday when its cold damp cold feels worse. Check for air leaks but if its none of the above and they pay for their own electric, they do have a way to get in their own range.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 16, 2009 1:32 PM in response to Temperature in Apt.

No space has yet been taken over in Brooklyn by ED. Not one square inch.

and if you ever have been to the area in New London you would know it much is better after Kelo.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 13, 2009 3:45 PM in response to Atlantic Yards Court Case Begins Wednesday

You know I am not anti the stadium/arena. ratner could have built it already. He owns all the Land north of Atlantic Ave and Yards. He just wanted it built his was or the highway. There are many configurations that would have not used ED at all. Most of the land he was able to buy. The issue is the forced selling of someone's property for the benefit of another private person. No one disputes the right for a public project like a road, a school or a police station, even a public housing project. Most of the ED was used so Ratner can build a commercial building having nothing to with the Arena(its not a stadium) lets go Nyets...

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 13, 2009 12:51 PM in response to Atlantic Yards Court Case Begins Wednesday

The Wall Street Journal today has an editorial against the ED in Atlantic Yards don't be so sure about the result.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459132540665594.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 13, 2009 12:28 PM in response to Atlantic Yards Court Case Begins Wednesday

its not a big nothing. The Eminent domain part is NOT the empty yards that is owned by the State. The big nothing is the homes along Pacific street south. It was made up of many buildings that were fully occupied. This is the same nonsense the developer says. The area of ED is not blighted at all.

It also includes the Building Ratner owns where PC Richards is. Why? so he can avoid NY City zoning rules.

Kelo was something totally different. New London is blighted and the local city council voted for the development. If the NY City Council would have been allowed to vote this would have been much better.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 13, 2009 12:24 PM in response to Atlantic Yards Court Case Begins Wednesday

http://www.tregny.com/pdf/standard_rental.pdf

standard form Bloomberg lease form(not that Bloomberg another one)

There is nothing in the lease about open houses. That is not to show to specific person but anyone who walks in and you have to lock down your apartment---as it is a time when things walk off.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 2, 2009 3:03 PM in response to Right of Entry

raphael9, the standard form lease does not give the landlord an unlimited right of entry to show the apartment. please look at a copy of the standard form lease.

Also it seems to me that this tenant negotiated a lease in their favor(removing the right to end the lease upon 30 days notice of sale) so I assume they knew what they are doing.

The tenant has possession and is entitled to enjoy that peaceably. the landlord can't force their way in and does so at their peril. NY Juries have given apartments to the tenant when landlords abuse their limited rights.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 2, 2009 1:41 PM in response to Right of Entry

A standard form lease gives the landlord the right to enter the apartment to make repairs and sometimes to do an inspection. The standard form lease allows the apartment to be shown 30-60 days before the lease expires. Reasonable notice is a couple of hours not 24-48. An open house may or may not be allowed. If both parties sit down and are reasonable they should both be able to work this out. The landlord is not giving you a renewal anyway. What he can do? By the time a court hears his case months will have gone by. be reasonable give him a call and tell him you want to work out a reasonable accommodation. If he wants to have an open house all day he should buy you dinner.

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 2, 2009 12:56 PM in response to Right of Entry

Thanks Fsrq. I was one of the people in favor of it. It looks great and is used so often that as you say people fight over it. I was there when it opened and it is still great. If it was real grass it would be a disaster. They added more real grass around the periphery and it is hard to keep up...

Posted by: smeyer418 at October 1, 2009 3:03 PM in response to Turf Looking Good to Go at Dean Street Playground

People court doesn't necessarily follow the law(its arbitration hence arbitrary) and the law of NY may vary.

If you have stayed in the apartment for a full lease and now only raise "safetly" issues that either the landlord has not been informed of or looked like recently made up, don't be surprised if you aren't believed.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 29, 2009 12:11 PM in response to 30-Day Notice Req'd?

the property owner is liable for injuries in places with 4 and above- I looked it up.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 25, 2009 1:25 PM in response to DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

But you can put a seat out on any sidewalk(as long as you don't block it) and eat.
It IS public property and while you have some limited obligation to keep it clean, you don't own it(and BTW the city is liable for any injury on it except if its a large apartment house I think the number is 5 and above but I know 1,2 and 3's are NOT liable for someone who is hurt on the sidewalk)

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 25, 2009 1:22 PM in response to DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

Jim If you don't mind telling how long did it take from start to finish.
Thank you

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 24, 2009 9:50 PM in response to Tax Lot Divisions

Brooklyn Speaks tried to work with ratner/ESDC they weren't listening at all. Even Marty and his reps started attending the Brooklyn Speaks meetings but the ESDC and Ratner had a deaf ear and blind eye to any discussions. They didn't want any input except from sycophants.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 24, 2009 11:21 AM in response to Nets Will Have New Owner; FCR Will Have New AY Partner

BTW the Court of Appeals just over ruled the unanimous decision by the lower court in the Richard Ravitch Lt governor matter so it does happen(4 to 3)

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 23, 2009 9:53 PM in response to Nets Will Have New Owner; FCR Will Have New AY Partner

The Russians are coming the Russians are coming opps the Russians are here! the Russians are here. A shout out for the person who came up with the NY Nyets!

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 23, 2009 9:51 PM in response to Nets Will Have New Owner; FCR Will Have New AY Partner

actually its 205 million direct subsidy plus the infrastructure of an additional 100. Its 105 from the city and 100 from the state with the city responsible for the infrastructure improvements(roads with the sewers water etc that then get added to the water bills YOU pay plus what ever else lights etc..)

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 23, 2009 6:06 PM in response to Mikhail Prokhorov's Unique Offer

Mr Joist the 200 million I count is without the infrastructure amounts. Its direct costs and the IBO issued a new report that says the benefit is less than 0.
The infrastructure amounts are an added 105 million and I didn't count them at all....

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 23, 2009 3:36 PM in response to Mikhail Prokhorov's Unique Offer

the city and the state gave $200,000,000 in direct support to this project. the tax exempt bonds are repaid by using what would otherwise be real estate taxes(Pilots-payment in lieu of taxes) to repay the bonds so that in the end we actually pay for the arena and don't own it. The 200 million in cash was used to repay the cost of acquiring the property.
The affordable housing will be built using as of right tax payer subsidy programs.
The IBO office said that they city would not get back its money in tax payments. ratner they believe would make about 3/4 of a billion dollars.
You can get more information mostly without too much bias at Norman Oder's atlantic yards blog.
Ratner has spent some of his own money- they claim about a total of $500 million spent so far(about 300 m of their own investor's money)

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 23, 2009 2:00 PM in response to Mikhail Prokhorov's Unique Offer

I saw that movie
the Russians are coming
the Russians are coming

let them come and lose money too!

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 23, 2009 11:50 AM in response to Mikhail Prokhorov's Unique Offer

libel is the untruthful posting about anybody. You can get the name and email address of an anonymous poster through legal means. Remember google or yahoo had to give the name recently in a case and they have been sued by the blogger-the suer will lose IMO-.

Since brokers tend to sue a lot, its also likely they will sue for what they think is libel.
There are two types of libel per se and libel that caused injury. libel per se is when you say someone is a crook or things like that say they do illegal things. The other libel is when you say someone is a bad person and that causes them actual monetary damages. The person suing in the latter case has to prove actual damages. You don't have to prove damages to be able to sue for libel per se(but it helps with getting an award of damages) but you are also entitled to punitive damages not based on actual loses.

Finally truth is a defense but the defendant has the burden to prove the truth of what they said.

Remember there are some exceptions to this as an example when the person is a public figure(absent malice you can say almost anything you want about a public figure)or what you say in court or in court papers...

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 22, 2009 4:36 PM in response to Worst Broker Experience Ever

the cost to just rehab the cantilever's mile and a half is estimated to be a cool 300 million

https://www.nysdot.gov/bqedowntownbrooklyn

There is a study done to make a tunnel out of the entire section which would cost in excess of $10 billion dollars.

The cross harbor train tunnel would cost 4.5 billion and the tunnel under construction now for additional train service now under construction is over 3.5 billion.

I am sure the 300,000 includes money for neighborhood meeting and input.

DOT does a fairly good job of seeking neighborhood comments at the scoping meeting see above.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 21, 2009 3:26 PM in response to What to Do with the BQE Ditch

In almost any other place but NY, if someone violates a stop work order they go to jail. They also need to pull licenses when someone does this permanently. Fining doesn't seem to work and selling the equipment is just another way of fining them...who do you think will buy the equipment back?

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 21, 2009 3:10 PM in response to St. George's Demo Halted, But the Damage Is Done

calling when there is no gas leak is a big no no and may get you arrested.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 21, 2009 11:12 AM in response to Conned by Con Edison?

http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/ocs/itgate.nsf/%28webDPS_welcome%29?OpenForm

link to the complaint form

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 21, 2009 11:10 AM in response to Conned by Con Edison?

Have you checked the meter to see if the readings are accurate or are they estimates? Do you have an air conditioner? The place to file a complaint is the NY State Public service commission- when I filed a complaint against National gas they wound up putting in for free remote reads...

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 21, 2009 11:08 AM in response to Conned by Con Edison?

State Law(actually the State Constitution) prohibits using eminent domain by the ESDC except for subsidized housing developments- the use for the Arena alone is not permissible...another lawsuit.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 17, 2009 5:33 PM in response to The New Yorker: For Arena, Against Yards

BTW this is also an example of what the money for member items does.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 17, 2009 10:17 AM in response to $15 Million for Two Navy Yard Projects

Apathy. I am amazed that so few people votes. less than 350,000. You wonder why we get so poor politicians? Look in a mirror sometime....

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 16, 2009 11:56 AM in response to Democratic Primary Results

you know I posted something against the new design when I first saw it. I went to the presentation tonight and saw the model. I must say I was impressed that they had transformed what I thought would be horrible to much less so. I thought they toned down the light pollution very well.
As for DDDb letter...its a nice well written letter. those who are opposed to the project will see many things they like in the letter. Those that support it will see it as meddling and grandstanding...yet its the same letter.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 14, 2009 8:35 PM in response to Closing Bell: DDDB's Letter to SHoP

The Captain of the 88th reported at the meeting of CB #2 on Wednesday night that the reason they only do radio cars is that he has insufficient resources to do foot patrols. The cars do double duty of driving through the park and are available for calls and other duties throughout the precinct. he reportedly has 135 cops for 3 shifts 7 days a week(with vacations and other time off this means less than 30 cops are available for the entire precinct per shift. He reportedly does have plain clothes patrols but they normally end by 1 or 2 when crime begins to wane. if you hear gun shots you need to report it as without a report it doesn't exist. According to Tasso he reads every report made and every report made to 311. The lighting at the park was raised at the meeting. Again unless someone complains no one is going to take care of it(sometimes councilmembers will allocate money for lightening based on complaints...
Every precinct has a community council that meets once a month where the Captain and most of the senior staff shows. If you have issues and want them responded to show up and complain. Posting it here is the cowards way.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 12, 2009 6:36 PM in response to Crime Down in Fort Greene, Despite Unease

In many buildings that have office space listed instead of sleeping space the problem is no window in the working area. No one stops you from sleeping in this space and unless someone complains no one ever will enter your apartment. Is this the issue or is it something else?

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 11, 2009 6:19 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

BTW perforated cooper plates are not rust colored They may start out copper colored. They will age green just like the Statue of Liberty. and not bleed rust like iron/steel will.

Architects Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron and engineers Arup designed the newly rebuilt structure, which reopened on October 15, 2005. The current building is clad with perforated copper plates, which will change colors through exposure to the elements. A 144 ft. (44 m) observation tower allows visitors to see much of Golden Gate Park's Music Concourse (see below) and rises above the Park's treetops providing a view of the Golden Gate and Marin Headlands.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 10, 2009 11:05 PM in response to Ourousoff Weighs In On Barclay's Center Design

1. The bars on 4th avenue aren't sports bars. They are mostly community bars a horse of a different color as far as bars go.
2. I'll stop by the De Young Museum when I am in SF. There is almost always an exception and maybe that is one of them...

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 10, 2009 6:06 PM in response to Ourousoff Weighs In On Barclay's Center Design

I hate rust buildings. I think they always look like someone couldn't afford paint or sealer. They bleed and look miserable. I have yet to see ONE of them that I like. I also think the rendering looks like a closed cell phone with a bottle cap opener. Probably represents the sports bars that will open on Atlantic and Flatbush like near Madison Square Garden...anyone think that will be an enticing neighborhood.

You really need to give DDDB credit. They have done exactly what they intended to do which has been successful so far. You need to admire success when they clearly were the underdog fighting the Mayor, multiple Governors and the powers that be.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 10, 2009 2:07 PM in response to Ourousoff Weighs In On Barclay's Center Design

small claims court is the easiest and fastest. Cost about $20 to start the lawsuit. Sue him for the deposit and the $150.00. Unless you stayed after the lease ended you have no obligation at all. If you stayed after 8/15 you became a month to month tenant or a holdover by operation of law having nothing to do with the lease.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 10, 2009 10:59 AM in response to Lease Notice & Termination

@northridger: thanks for correcting my math - was having trouble multiplying by three this morning. I'm assuming the property in question is a landmark (most private residences that use deduction are), but I don't know. Still, landmark or not, if the numbers are correct that is a very high valuation for the exterior of the building.

Posted by: WBer at November 4, 2009 2:24 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

@WBer...yeah. The problem the IRS is seeing is a $270,000 claim on a house appraised at $1.2MM. It seems a long stretch to prove to the IRS that the OP expected a $270K loss from the easement. A really, really long stretch.

It's impossible to say what the IRS valued the easement at without all the details, but if you apply some common sense SWAGs to what the penalties and interest might be, then a $145K bill implies that the IRS thought the loss in sale value of the home was pretty small, if not just plain zero. To do it right you'd have to figure out the taxes owed on $270K for that home owner....

Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 2:36 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

"a program offered by an historic preservation organization"...ie not LPC? who?

Why does this sound unkosher to me...ie a dubious tax-shelter scheme?

Posted by: cmu at November 4, 2009 2:38 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

It sounds unkosher because very few people would knowingly lower the real value of their home by $200,000 in order to take $200,000 in tax deductions (of which you would only get back maybe 30% or $60,000 on your taxes). Why give away $200k to get back $60k at tax time?

You would only "donate" $200,000 and take the deduction, if you knew it didn't actually lower the value of your home by as much as you are claiming it does. That's why the IRS is looking so hard at this, generally speaking, they know the donation probably didn't change the value of the house as much as is being claimed. Not that many people are preservation-minded enough to honestly donate away hundreds of thousands of dollars in real equity.

Posted by: setancre at November 4, 2009 2:52 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

I attended a seminar on this topic a few years ago as well. I remember sitting in the room, listening to some guy in a bow tie describe the scheme, which basically goes like this-- you claim an easement agreeing not to change the facade of your building which, hello?, you know you would never do anyway. WHat? You were going to be vinyl siding on it but now you aren't?? Dress it up how you like with a lot of palaver about historic preservation, but I thought it was unethical then and I still do. Audits are awful. My sympathies. But this is a little like the Madoff victims who kept getting 12 % when everyone else was down and didn't want to inquire too closely.

Posted by: Cobblekrill at November 4, 2009 2:54 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

@cmu - it is not a dubious tax-shelter scheme, it is a legitimate tax deduction. You are donating something of value to a non-for-profit (LPC is a government agency, not an historic preservation organization). There are some non-profits that have been established pretty much solely for accepting easements, and these organizations have raised red flags, but there are a lot of legitimate preservation organizations that hold easements as part of their larger preservation program (and by the way, I don't think HDC is one of them).

Posted by: WBer at November 4, 2009 3:00 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

The HDC presentation did not sit well with me, but as you can see from their brochure, they claim to be qualified. Caveat emptor.

Posted by: vinca at November 4, 2009 3:12 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

It's sorta like donating your junker car to a charitable organization and taking a tax deduction for the 5k blue book value of the car, even though the charity contracts with a company that tows away and sells the junker for $100 and gets 50 bucks out of the deal. I did that once before the IRS tightened up on that game. Now you can deduct the fair value of the donated car.

If you take a 270k deduction and when the change in value for adding the easement to the property in a landmarked district is de minimus, then I'd say a fair outcome is to argue you were not negligent, made some reasonable attempt to do the legal thing, and pay the tax you should have paid when you took the questionable deduction and try to negotiate the interest and penalties.

Posted by: Bklnite at November 4, 2009 3:18 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

I just read the links that vinca provided, and the IRS one is chilling as it relates to this sort of case. The bulletin is:

"Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-28
July 12, 2004

Notice 2004-41
Charitable Contributions and Conservation Easements ".

Note that the bulletin is from 2004.

There's lots of talk about the intent behind the easements, and lots of technical terms, but near the end has the chilling paragraph:

"If the donor (or a related person) reasonably can expect to receive financial or economic benefits greater than those that will inure to the general public as a result of the donation of a conservation easement, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i). If the donation of a conservation easement has no material effect on the value of real property, or enhances rather than reduces the value of real property, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(ii)."

Reading the whole document, it's pretty clear the intent of the deduction is to allow someone to deduct when they're making clear donations for conservation purposes that in some way contribute to the public good. For example, if the a rich family gave 20,000 acres of land to the NY/NJ trail conference for public use, they'd probably get a tax deduction for the full value of that land.

In the case of facades....the IRS wants you to show that what you're doing is in the public good, and that you're taking a material financial hit in doing so, and that the organization taking the easement is a true non-profit. If this is an LPC area than I'd say based on those rules you are SOL. If it's not LPC, then there's some wiggle room. But $270K still seems very, very excessive.

A question for vcthomas...did a tax attorney go over this deduction with you when you took it? Or did only the "historic preservation organization" help you out? Hopefully not just the latter. If you're taking any single deductions more than 10K or so it makes sense to have a tax attorney take a look at it. Not doing so just leaves you totally open to scammers and people's skirting the fringes of the IRS tolerance.

Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 3:30 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare

Ouch, it gets worse if you google it. Take a look here:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=136337,00.html

The document, from 2005, shows that the IRS explicitly considers an easement on a home's facade in an area with a local historic preservation organization to be an invalid deduction. In fact, the article implicitly calls it a notorious tax scam. Here's the relevant bits...it's #9 on the "dirty dozen" scam list from 2005.

"IRS Announces the 2005 Dirty Dozen

IR-2005-19, Feb. 28, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today unveiled its annual listing of notorious tax scams, the “Dirty Dozen,” reminding taxpayers to be wary of schemes that promise to eliminate taxes or otherwise sound too good to be true.

Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions. The IRS has observed an increase in the use of tax-exempt organizations to improperly shield income or assets from taxation. This can occur, for example, when a taxpayer moves assets or income to a tax-exempt supporting organization or donor-advised fund but maintains control over the assets or income, thereby obtaining a tax deduction without transferring a commensurate benefit to charity. A “contribution” of a historic facade easement to a tax-exempt conservation organization is another example. In many cases, local historic preservation laws already prohibit alteration of the home’s facade, making the contributed easement superfluous. Even if the facade could be altered, the deduction claimed for the easement contribution may far exceed the easement’s impact on the value of the property."

Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 3:40 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare