Another Gross Overvaluation Conservation Easement Claim Fails (5/6/26)

In Kimberly Road Fulton 25, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-36 (5/4/26), Case # 2026-36 here at #178 and GS here [to come], the Court (Judge Holmes) shot down another bullshit syndicated conservation easement (“SCE”). As is common, the bullshit was in the gross overvaluation. So, not only do the partnerships (and their partners) in the consolidated cases lose, but they suffer the 40% 6662(h) gross valuation misstatement penalties. On the penalties, the Court’s analysis driven by its holding of a gross overvaluation is short (p.39, footnote omitted):

VI. Penalties

          The FPAAs determined the applicability of section 6662(h) gross-valuation misstatement penalties. This penalty applies if the value of property claimed on a return is 200% or more of the amount determined to be the correct value. It’s a 40% penalty, and there’s no reasonable cause defense. I.R.C. § 6664(c)(3). This is a math question, and it is a math question that we must find the Commissioner got right. The parties stipulated that the Commissioner complied with the supervisory-approval requirement of section 6751(b)(1) in asserting these penalties, and we therefore uphold them. 

Because its material facts are many and duplicative of patterns in earlier bullshit SCE cases, the only thing that makes this opinion worth reading is its opening (Slip Op. 1-2) which anticipates the conclusions I summarized above:

Jeffrey Grant’s grandfather taught him a saying that has stuck with him all his life: “Sometimes, a fast nickel is worth more than a slow dime.” A self-identified “land man,” Grant has [*2] made a career of buying vacant land in Georgia and quickly turning it into enough “fast nickels” to make a good living.

More on the Economic Substance Doctrine (ESD) and Relevancy in § 7701(o) (5/5/26)

In Kadau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-37 (5/5/26), referred to as Kadau II, TC Case # 286-21 here at #216; GS here [to come], the Court held that the taxpayer’s microcaptive insurance arrangement failed under the Economic Substance Doctrine (“ESD”) in § 7701(o) and was subject to the 40% penalty in § 6662(b)(6) and (i). Given the facts in Kadau II and its earlier opinion in Kadau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-81 (referred to as Kadau I), at # 198 and GS here, the result is not surprising. The arrangement was smoke and mirrors to appear as a transaction with magic tax benefits.

Kadau II drew my attention because of its discussion of § 7701(o)’s requirement that the common law ESD be “relevant.” § 7701(o)(1) & (o)(5)(C). I have written on this issue before. See Liberty Global's Tax Scam Fails in Tenth Circuit (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/30/26), here; The Economic Substance Doctrine ("ESD")--the Common Law and § 7701(o) (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/31/26; 4/8/26), here; and Tax Court in Unanimous Reviewed Opinion Interprets and Applies the Accuracy-Related Economic Substance Penalty (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 11/12/25), here. I thought this might be a good point to offer further thoughts on § 7701(o) and the requirement that the common law ESD be “relevant.” (Actually, anticipating a theme below, my thoughts today may be a clarification of my earlier thoughts.)

Section § 7701(o), titled “Clarification,” states the general prongs of the common law ESD requirement—meaningful economic position effect and substantial nontax purpose. § 7701(o)(1). Then, in the balance of § 7701(o), some specific rules for applying the ESD are provided, such as that the nontax profit potential “be substantial in relation to the expected value of the net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected.” § 7701(o)(2)(A). Those in the tax world for some time know precisely why that “clarification” was there—to foreclose taxpayer arguments that remote, unlikely profit potentials could still meet that prong of the common law ESD.

Kadau II addresses the term “relevant” in § 7701(o). Kadau II accepted the holding in Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 10 (11/12/25) (reviewed unanimous) that § 7701(o) requires that the common law ESD must be “relevant” before § 7701(o) can apply. The Court in Kadau II did not need to address that predicate requirement because petitioners in briefing said (p. 4, emphasis supplied):

As the Court held in Patel III, a threshold determination must be made as to whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant. Because Petitioners formed a small captive insurance company, Petitioners acknowledge that section 7701(o) is applicable. The dispositive question is whether Petitioners’ transactions satisfy its requirements. Accordingly, we refrain from addressing any threshold determination issues and proceed directly to examination of the transaction by applying the foregoing elements outlined in section 7701(o)(1).