Eleventh Circuit Rejects Bullshit Conservation Easement Shelter (7/20/26; 7/27/26)

In Savannah Shoals, LLC v. Commissioner, ___ F.4th ___ (11th Cir. 2026), CA11 here and GS here, the Eleventh Circuit rejects the appeal of a bullshit conservation easement shelter. The result is foretold in the first paragraph of the opinion, noting that the shelter claimed a “$23 million” deduction for an easement found by the Tax Court to be worth $480,000. See Judge Goeke’s opinion Savannah Shoals LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-35, here.

I won’t discuss the opinion further because, although it is 34 pages long and is designated “FOR PUBLICATION,” I don’t think it adds anything material to previously developed law, factual conclusions, and appellate review. The bottom-line is for taxpayers and promoters to avoid bullshit claims, including bullshit claims on the Tax Court’s valuations. The Court does not say that or even, for most readers, fairly imply that. Still, that is my inference. And, of course, plenty of other opinions, including from this Court, can be read for that proposition.

One interesting point is that oral argument was 12/10/25 and the unanimous opinion was 7/16/26, for 218 days gestation period for a 34 page opinion of little precedential value. (See CL docket entries here).

However, I will make some comments which are even more picky.

JAT Comments:

 1. The Court discusses the shelter’s attack on the IRS expert. (See Slip Op. 10-16.) The Court spends some time discussing FRE 702 and the Daubert Standard. As it turns out, immediately before I read Savannah Shoals, I had just revised my Federal Tax Procedure Practitioner Edition to add a footnote on the text reference to FRE 702. I just copy and paste that footnote discussion because I don’t think the Court in Savannah Shoals picked up the nuance even though I don’t think the nuance would have changed the outcome.

Another Bullshit SCE Case Fails for the Usual Reasons, but Court also Rejects the Jarkesy Claim (7/16/26)

In Piton Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 167 T.C. ___, No. 4 (2026), TC Dkt 637-23, here, at # 237 and GS here [to come], the Court (Judge Kerrigan) gave the IRS the victory in yet another syndicated conservation easement (“SCE”) case. The Court

• rejected the usual bullshit about the before contribution valuation from which the after valuation is deducted. The before contribution value claimed was $42,200,000; the Court found the before contribution value was $1,440,000. Since the parties stipulated that the after contribution value of the property subject to the easement was $640,000, the contribution value was reduced from $41,635,000 to $800,000. Hence, the value of the “contribution” was greatly, should I say grossly, reduced based on a gross overvaluation of the value of the easement. I address this in my comments below.
• found that the partnership improperly allocated the resulting deductions among the partners. This holding applies in the “varying interests” rule in partnership tax law. The allocation made by the partnership failed the requirements of that rule. It is a bit esoteric, so I do not discuss it further. (See Slip Op. 36-44.)
• found, applying simple math (and as usual with SCE bullshit valuation claims that are litigated), the gross valuation misstatement penalty in § 6662(h) applies (Slip Op. 44-45.)
• rejected the claim that § 6662 penalties are not assessable as a matter of law because of the application of U.S. Const. amend. VII, raising the Jarkesy case. (Slip Op. 45-I briefly discuss this in my comments below.

JAT Comments:

1. At the outset, I am amazed that the Tax Court has not found some way to better manage these SCE cases where, it seems on the anecdotal cases I have read, the partnership proffers grossly excessive valuations and requires enormous judicial and other resources to call the partnerships out on the bullshit valuation claims. I thought Judge Buch was trying to do that in a case about which I blogged earlier. Tax Court Rejects a Bullshit Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the Bullshit (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/16/25; 9/10/25), here. Perhaps Judge Buch’s warnings have been effective in some cases which have settled. But Piton Holdings illustrates that the message has not been respected by some. So, for example, why did Judge Kerrigan not consider the penalties Judge Buch indicated were possible?

2. The Court’s findings of fact and conclusions regarding the valuation issue are standard for SCE cases. The key valuation always in dispute is the “before contribution” value of the property for which an easement was contributed. Remember that the valuation of the easement because there is no market for such easements, is derived by the “before contribution” value less the after contribution value of the property subject to the easement contributed. (That simple subtraction produces the contribution value, but I suggest (without further explanation) that even that method may overvalue the easement for contribution purposes.

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, 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.

Tax Court (Judge Lauber) Strikes Down Another Bullshit Tax Shelter Not Defending It's Return Reporting Valuation (3/30/26; 4/2/26)

In Hancock County Land Acquisitions, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-28, TC here at # 232 and GS here, Judge Lauber shot down another bullshit SCE shelter. Judge Lauber explains in summary in the introduction (pp. 1-3 of the opinion) in a straight-forward way, so I will just cut and paste that portion of the opinion (providing my own bold-face of key parts, with one footnote omitted) and will thereafter make some comments:

LAUBER, Judge: This is a syndicated conservation easement (SCE) case with a familiar fact pattern. In August 2016 Hancock County Land Acquisitions, LLC (HCLA), granted a conservation easement over a 236-acre parcel of land in rural Mississippi. This parcel was part of a 1,698-acre tract that had changed hands three times during the previous 13 years for prices as low as $895 and $2,356 per acre.1 On its 2016 Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, HCLA claimed a charitable contribution deduction for the easement on the theory that the [*2] “before value” of the 236-acre parcel—that is, its value before being encumbered by the easement—was $180,177,000, or $763,462 per acre. That figure was calculated as the discounted cashflow (DCF) that supposedly could be derived from constructing and operating a hypothetical sand and gravel (S&G) mining business on the property.

          To its credit, Southeastern Argive Investments, LLC (Argive), petitioner in this case, did not seek to defend that outlandish valuation at trial. Rather, petitioner sought to derive a “before value” for the 236-acre parcel from the amount investors paid to acquire a 97% interest in Argive, or from the amount Argive paid to acquire a 97% interest in HCLA, which owned the land. The “total capital raise” from the investor offering was $23,374,575, and roughly 78% of that amount, or $18,247,575, was paid to the owner of the 236-acre parcel. Petitioner contends that the offering was an arm’s-length transaction close in time to—indeed, just six weeks before—the date the easement was granted (valuation date), and that this transaction constitutes the best evidence of the fair market value (FMV) of the land. While not disclaiming a higher value, petitioner contends that the “before value” of the land (making adjustments for minority interests) was at least $18,634,933, or $78,962 per acre.

          We reject this argument. The investors were not purchasing land; in substance, they were purchasing tax deductions. Each investor was promised a charitable contribution tax deduction of $7,477 for every $1,000 invested. As a result, the amount they paid for their partnership interests was (roughly speaking) the aggregate amount of the promised tax deduction divided by 7.477. Neither the investors nor Argive negotiated at arm’s length over the value of the land; the offering was not priced by reference to the value of the land; and the amount the investors paid had nothing to do with the value of the land. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that the investors expressed any view about what percentage of the offering proceeds should be paid to the land-owner under arm’s-length standards. We find that the sole focus of their concern was the magnitude of the tax deduction. That number would be the same regardless of how much the landowner was paid for the land.

Tax Court Calls Out Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter But Relieves Taxpayer of 6662 Penalties (2/24/26 as corrected; 2/27/26)

Major Correction: I made an error in the original blog post, by misreading the court's application of the 40% Substantial Valuation Misstatement and Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalties in § 6662(e)(1)(A) and I.R.C. § 6662(h) but not picking up that the reasonable cause defense it sustained effectively wiped out all 6662 penalties.

Yesterday, the Tax Court (Judge Weiler) decided Otay Project LP v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-21, TC Dkt here at # 349, TN here, and GS here, tanking another bullshit tax shelter. There is no indication that this is a syndicated shelter creating basis and thus deductions out of thin air in complex structures taxed as partnership; as presented it seems like “one-off” imagined by creative minds and blessed by firms that have played prominently in tax sheltering—E&Y and McKee Nelson LLP; moreover, I suspect (suspicion only) that variations on the shelter were promoted on and opined upon on other occasions.

I find it a bit odd that, although Judge Weiler says he read the those firms’ opinions (Slip Op. 45), but he does not identify the persons signing the opinions. Oh well, let’s move on to the main points for tax procedure enthusiasts.

On the Merits of the Complex Machinations:

The actual bottom-line tax costs of the shelter failing must await the Rule 155 computation, but the Court concludes on the merits (other than penalties) (Slip Op. 31):

In sum, we determine petitioner has not met its burden here and has failed to correctly establish the Basis Deduction under section 743(b), as claimed on OPLP’s 2012 Form 1065. Accordingly, we will sustain respondent’s disallowance of $713,759,615 of a more than $743 million claimed Basis Deduction reported on OPLP’s 2012 Form 1065 for the 2012 tax period. 

I believe it would not be helpful to most tax procedure enthusiasts to wade into the complex facts and partnership tax law discussed in the opinion. Although this appeared not to be one of the abusive shelters of the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., BLIPS or variants used by different accounting and law firms), I suspect that some of the fanciful notions asserted in those earlier versions were deployed here in a more complex and “engineered” (Slip Op. 30-32) journey through esoteric partnership tax provisions.

Suffice it to say that the Court rejected that “engineered” journey on the merits of the partnership tax law and also based on economic substance doctrine. In this regard, because it preceded the effective date, the transaction was not subject to the codified economic substance doctrine in § 7771(o) or the penalty in § 6662(b)(6). (See Slip Op 2 n. 2.)

 The Penalties:

Tax Court (Lauber) Rejects Bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement (BSSCE) Valuation Claim (2/19/26; 5/21/26)

Today, Judge Lauber called out yet another bullshit syndicated conservation easement (“BSSCE”). North Donald LA Property, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-19 T.C. No. 24703-21, here, at # 476; TN here; and GS here.The BSSCE claimed a charitable contribution of $115,391,000. The flaw that swung the case against BSSCE was, as Judge Lauber held in the opening (Slip Op. p. 3):

We conclude here, as we did in J L Minerals, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-93, at *3, that the valuation of the conservation easement “was an outrageous overstatement,” wholly untethered from reality. Employing the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property in March 2016, we find that its “before value” was $2,975 per acre and that its “after value” was $2,300 per acre. The delta between these figures—the reduction in value attributable to the easement—is $675 per acre. The value of the easement—and hence the allowable charitable contribution deduction—is thus $175,824 ($675 × 260.48 = $175,824).

For those who are valuation enthusiasts, I suppose there is a lot to chew on. 

There are some interesting snippets in the opinion. I will list them in my numbered further comments below. The main things I want to write on are (i) the bottom-line valuation and (ii) the rejection of the civil fraud penalty for bullshit valuations. At trial, despite claiming a $115,391,000 value on the return, North Donald’s simultaneous opening brief (pp. 6, 124 & 202) described the valuation as:

5. Whether the value of the Easement Donation, as determined by Petitioner’s expert (Mr. Catlett), is $61,235,000?

* * * * 

824. The value of the Easement Donation is as determined by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Catlett, $61,235,000. Entire Record.

* * * * 

Because the Catlett Appraisal is the only appraisal before the Court that considered the relevant, available data regarding the quantity and quality of the clay reserves on the NDLA Property, the Court should adopt Mr. Catlett’s determination that the value of the Conservation Easement is at least $61,235,000.

So, after trial, North Donald conceded $54,156,000 of the amount it claimed on the return. More importantly, after trial, North Donald still claimed a value of $61,235,000. Judge Lauber found that the actual value was $175,824, which is 0.29% of the value North Donald claimed at trial. North Donald presented a gross overvaluation at trial by presenting, I guess with a straight trial face on, a valuation methology—described by Judge Lauber as the “Income Approach”—that has repeatedly been rejected by the Tax Court, as Judge Lauder notes (Slip Op. 54-59.)  Some interesting points of Judge Lauber’s analysis of petitioner’s claimed valuation:

Tax Court Rejects SCE’s Hail Mary Jarkesy Pass (8/21/25; 10/22/25)

On 10/17/25, I added Comment # 3 below regarding the Court's denial of petitioner's Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Order to Permit Immediate Appeal on the Jarkesy issue.

On 10/22/25, I added Comment #4 below to not the Tax Court's denial of Silver Moss's Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Order to Permit Immediate Appeal on the Jarkesy issue.

In Silver Moss Properties, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 3 (2025) (T.C. Dkt. No. 10646-21, here, at Entry # 109, GS here)), the Court acting as referee called out that Taxpayer’s Hail Mary pass* to avoid the civil fraud penalty. Since the Tax Court (or someone for it) has already stated the essence of the case in a Headnote, I just copy and paste it here:

           A partnership subject to the audit and litigation procedures of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, donated a conservation easement and claimed a charitable contribution deduction under I.R.C. § 170. P, the tax matters partner, timely petitioned this Court challenging the IRS’s Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment. R later amended his Answer to assert a civil fraud penalty against the partnership under I.R.C. § 6663(a).

          P filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, citing SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024), and contending that this Court is barred from adjudicating the civil fraud penalty because U.S. Const. amend. VII guarantees a right to trial by jury in such actions, which is not an option in this Court.

          Held: U.S. Const. amend. VII does not apply to suits against the sovereign, and Congress has not otherwise consented to trial by jury in TEFRA partnership-level actions.

          Held, further, the “public rights” exception to U.S. Const. amend. VII applies to a civil fraud penalty under I.R.C. § 6663(a).

          Held, further, this Court may adjudicate an I.R.C. § 6663(a) civil fraud penalty.

This plaintiff in the case appears to be a Tax Matters Partner for an LLC taxed as a partnership, which appears to be the favored format for the flurry of bullshit Syndication Conservation Easement ("SCE") tax shelter cases plaguing the Tax Court now with wholly inappropriate drains on the Tax Court's , the IRS’s and the public fisc resources. I don't know if this particular case involves an abusive tax shelter, but it seems to have the same earmarks, including the same lawyers involved in some of the abusive shelter cases. 

 JAT Comments:

1. (Warning, this is a multi-paragraph comment #1): In this case, the IRS did not originally assert the civil fraud penalty, §6663, in its FPAA. The Court granted the IRS motion for leave to file the amended answer asserting the fraud penalty based on discovery from the petitioner. (See Docket entry # 37.) I presume that the FPAA originally asserted the 40%  gross overvaluation penalty. §6662(h), a penalty that is almost always finally applied by the Tax Court in these  SCE cases, if properly asserted, because well simple mathematics shows a gross overvaluation. So, the difference is 25% (which, like civil penalties, generally accrues interest from the date the return was due). Which means that the cost of playing the audit lottery can be more than the taxpayers (encouraged by the promoters who promoted bogus valuations and bogus legal opinions) counted on.

Tax Court Rejects Bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement Shelter for the Usual Reasons (3/31/25)

In Ranch Springs, LLC v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. ___, No. 6 (3/31/25), links below *, the Tax Court rejected another bullshit tax shelter, here of the syndicated conservation easement ilk. The fact pattern for this ilk of bullshit tax shelter may be simply stated: a grossly overvalued property contributed to charity for charitable easement purposes. The holding highly summarized is:

• the real value is determined in an amount grossly less (joining grossly and less may not be good English, but readers will get the concept); and
• the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty applies because, well, the valuation was grossly misstated.

A more detailed summary is found in the Syllabus and, for those wanting more, in the 66-page opinion (actually 64 excluding the caption and the Syllabus), but that is the guts of the holdings.

These are unexceptional holdings, in my opinion, so I am not sure why the Court designated this a “T.C.” opinion rather than a “T.C. Memo.” opinion. The parts I found interesting (set forth below) are hardly the stuff of which T.C. opinions are usually made. Perhaps the reason is in the third “Held” conclusion in the Syllabus relating to the proffered “before value” found to be erroneous as a matter of law as follows:

Held, further, assuming arguendo that limestone mining was a permissible use, the version of the income method P’s experts used to determine the “before value” of the property is erroneous as a matter of law because it equates the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. A knowledgeable willing buyer would not pay, for one of the assets needed to conduct a business, the entire projected value of the business.

. Oh well…..

So, what did I find interesting?

Tax Court Rejects Bullshit Grossly Overvalued Conservation Easement Claim (7/19/24; 11/7/25)

Added 11/7/25: On November 5, 2025, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court opinon reported in the blog below. Corning Place Ohio, LLC v. Commissioner, ___ F.4th ___ (6th Cir. 11/5/25), CA 6 here and GS here. Nothing surprising in the affirmance, but the panel did designate the opinion by Judge Sutton for publication.

In Corning Place Ohio, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-72, JAT Google Docs here and GS here, the Court (Judge Lauber) denied a charitable deduction for an alleged conservation easement and imposed accuracy-related penalties. The Court’s opening paragraph tells the story of a bullshit tax shelter, as so often these days, in the guise of a conservation easement (footnote omitted):

          This case presents what might be called the urban version of the conservation easement tidal wave that has deluged this Court. A partnership acquired a historic office building in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, and proceeded to renovate it into luxury [*3] apartments. The renovation was undertaken pursuant to a “rehabilitation plan” approved by the National Park Service (NPS) and the State of Ohio, both of which awarded historic preservation tax credits. The partnership used the tax credits to finance the renovation.

          Gilding the lily, the partnership then granted a conservation easement over the very same property, claiming a $22.6 million charitable contribution deduction on the theory that it had relinquished valuable development rights. The “lost development rights” allegedly consisted of the notional opportunity to add a 34-story vertical addition on top of the historic building. Apart from being structurally implausible and economically unsound, adding 34 floors of steel and concrete atop the building would have required the partnership to forfeit the Federal and Ohio tax credits upon which it relied to finance the renovation. As a condition of receiving those credits, it had pledged that the rehabilitation plan would entail no rooftop improvements “visible from the street.”

          Needless to say, a 34-story addition on top of the building would have been visible from the street. Finding that the 34-story tower was a chimerical concept ginned up solely to support a wildly inflated appraisal, we will sustain the Commissioner’s disallowance of the charitable contribution deduction and his imposition of a 40% penalty under section 6662(h) for a “gross valuation misstatement.”

I include at the end of this blog entry several quotes from the opinion that I thought particularly good to show the perfidy of the actors involved in the drama. First, I will address two tax procedure issues:

Grossly Overvalued Conservation Easement Disallowed in Full and Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalty Applied (2/24/24)

In Oconee Landing Property, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-25 (2/21/24), GS here, the Court (Judge Lauber) denied the charitable contribution deduction because

• the allegedly relied upon appraisers were not “qualified appraisers” because the petitioners knew the property was worth only a fraction of the appraisers’ opined values (Slip Op. 39-48; and
• the property was “ordinary income property” in the hands of the promoters and that character carried over to the partnership, thus limiting the charitable deduction to the promoters basis. Petitioner supplied “no evidence” of that basis. (Slip Op. 48-57.)

Further, the Court held that, although entitled to no deduction, the Court still had to determine the value of the contributed easement to determine whether the valuation misstatement penalties applied. § 6662(a), (b)(3). The penalties are 20% if the valuation is substantial—i.e., 150% or more of the correct value--and 40% if the valuation is gross—200% or more of the correct value. (Slip Op. 74, citing § 6662(h) and § 6662(h)(2)(A)(i), respectively.) The value of the easement claimed on the return was $20.67 million but the value determined “was no greater than $4,972,002, thus the claimed value “exceeded the correct value by 416%.” (Slip Op. 74-75.)

In support of the first holding (not qualified appraisers), the Court said (Slip Op. pp. 45-46):

A person who achieves an advance agreement with an appraiser that property will be overvalued—knowing that it is being overvalued—cannot establish good faith reliance on professional advice that the appraisal is acceptable. n14

But there is more in the indicated footnote, the Court said (Slip Op. 46):

   n14 In its opening post-trial brief petitioner asserted that the regulations governing qualified appraisals and qualified appraisers “did not go through a proper notice-and-comment process and are, therefore, invalid.” That assertion occupied a single sentence; petitioner supplied no argument in support of that assertion, stating that “the Court need not reach that issue in this case.” And in its post-trial Answering Brief petitioner did not mention any challenge to the validity of Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-13(c)(5)(ii), or any other provision of the regulations, based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under these circumstances, petitioner has not properly presented or preserved an APA challenge to any regulation discussed in this Opinion.

Another Bull Shit Shelter Bites the Dust (12/19/13)

We have yet another of the genre out of the Tenth Circuit, this time proving Michael Graetz's famous observation that an abusive tax shelter is “[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.”  The new case is Blum v. Commissioner, 737 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2013), here.

Before discussing the case, I offer this description of tax shelters from my Federal Tax Procedure Book (footnotes omitted):

Abusive tax shelters are many and varied.  Some are outright fraudulent, usually wrapped in a shroud of paper work designed to present the shelter as a real deal.  The more sophisticated are often without substance but do have some at least attenuated, if superficial, claim to legality.  Some of the characteristics that I have observed for tax shelters that the Government might perceive as abusive are that (i) the transaction is outside the mainstream activity of the taxpayer, (ii) the transaction is incredibly complex in its structure and steps so that not many (including specifically IRS auditors) will have the ability, tenacity, time and resources to trace it out to its illogical conclusion (this feature is often included to increase the taxpayer’s odds of winning the audit lottery); (iii) the transaction costs of the arrangement and risks involved, even where large relative to the deal, still have a favorable cost benefit/ratio only because of the tax benefits to be offered by the audit lottery, (iv) the promoters of the adventure make a lot more than even an hourly rate even at the high end for professionals (the so-called value added fee, which is often insurance type compensation to mediate shift potential penalty risks to the tax professional or the netherworld between the taxpayer and the tax professional) and (v) the objective indications as to the taxpayer's purpose for entering the transaction are a tax savings motive rather than any type of purposive business or investment motive.  More succinctly, Michael Graetz, a Yale Law Professor, has described an abusive tax shelter as “[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.”  Other thoughtful observers vary the theme, e.g. a tax shelter “is a deal done by very smart people who are pretending to be rather stupid themselves for financial gain.”

Blum fits the pattern.

Mr. Blum was a very successful businessman.  He was apparently very capable in assessing risks and rewards of financial ventures.  Mr. Blum retained KPMG who sold him one of its tax shelter products which it marketed in the 1990s and early 2000s.  This particular product was OPIS, a basis enhancement strategy. The abusive basis enhancement strategies claimed to create large amounts of basis without the taxpayer having to incur a cost for the basis.  The taxpayer would then use the artificial basis to offset otherwise taxable gain, thereby artificially reducing the tax liability.  Mr. Blum got into the deal when he had a large gain that would otherwise be taxed.

When KPMG's representative made the pitch, Mr. Blum "claims he saw an investment opportunity; the Commissioner claims Mr. Blum saw a tax evasion opportunity."  (Emphasis supplied.) Mr. Blum bought the pitch and made a representation to KPMG that he was doing the deal for a legitimate nontax business or investment purpose.  (That representation was essential to KPMG's participation in implementing the transaction.)  Bottom-line, the Tax Court concluded and the Tenth Circuit concluded that the representation was false.

Supreme Court Applies 40% Penalty to Bullshit Basis Enhancement Shelters (12/3/13)

In United States v. Woods, ___ U.S. ___ , 134 S. Ct. 557 (12/3/13), here, the Court rejected procedural arguments and applied the special 40% accuracy related penalty for valuation and basis overstatements.  §§6662(a), (b)(3), (e)(1)(A), (h).  The unanimous opinion is written  by Justice Scalia, the plain language justice, who not surprisingly concludes:  "The penalty’s plain language makes it applicable here."

I am sure others and even I will have a lot to say about the opinion and its ramifications later. (Here is my follow through post, More on the Supreme Court's Opinion in Woods on TEFRA and the 40% Basis Overstatement Penalty (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 12/4/13), here.

For now, this caught my eye as Justice Scalia jabs at the use of the Blue Book (what else could he do with such a tempting target):

Woods contends, however, that a document known as the “Blue Book” compels a different result. See General Explanation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97–34), 97 Cong., 1st Sess., 333, and n. 2 (Jt.Comm. Print 1980). Blue Books are prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation as commentaries on recently passed tax laws. They are “written after passage of the legislation and therefore d[o] not inform the decisions of the members of Congress who vot[e] in favor of the [law].” Flood v. United States, 33 F. 3d 1174, 1178 (CA9 1994). We have held that such “[p]ost-enactment legislative history (a contradiction in terms) is not a legitimatetool of statutory interpretation.” Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 17–18); accord, Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn. v. United States, 379 F. 3d 1303, 1309 (CA Fed. 2004) (dismissing Blue Book as “a post-enactment explanation”). While we have relied on similar documents in the past, see FPC v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., 411 U. S. 458, 471–472 (1973), our more recent precedents disapprove of that practice. Of course the Blue Book, like a law review article, may be relevant to the extent it is persuasive. But the passage at issue here does not persuade. It concerns a situation quite different from the one we confront: two separate, non­overlapping underpayments, only one of which is attributable to a valuation misstatement. 

In my Federal Tax Procedure book (not yet revised for the above, which, I doubt, is the last word on the issue), I discuss the Blue Book as follows (footnotes omitted):

A Self-Proclaimed "Simple Man," "Utterly Uneducated" in Tax and Finance, but Still a Self-Made Multi-Millionaire Loses his Bullshit Tax Shelter Case (4/15/13)

JAT NOTE: This blog is the same as a blog posted earlier on my Federal Tax Crimes Blog.  See A Self-Proclaimed "Simple Man," "Utterly Uneducated" in Tax and Finance, but Still a Self-Made Multi-Millionaire Loses his Bullshit Tax Shelter Case (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 4/13/13), here.

In Kerman v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7032 (6th Cir. 2013), here, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Kerman's claim for tax benefits or, at least, relief from penalties from a bullshit tax shelter, this one of the Cards variety that has met with uniform rejection from the courts.  I just gave you the final result.  But the opinion starts this way (usually you can tell the result from the opening):

A tax shelter can be legitimate — if the reported transaction has economic substance. But the shelter Mark Kerman participated in lacked such substance. The transaction had no purpose other than the creation of an income tax benefit. After Kerman claimed the benefit on his tax return, the IRS disallowed the deduction and imposed a valuation misstatement penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6662(e), which was increased to 40 percent of the unpaid tax pursuant to § 6662(h). The tax court affirmed the IRS's decision. Kerman appeals, contending that the shelter was legitimate and that, even if it was not, the penalty should not be imposed. Because the transaction lacked economic substance and Kerman lacked reasonable cause or good faith to believe that it did, we AFFIRM.
I
A
Mark Kerman is a college-educated multi-millionaire.

Toward the end of the opinion another key signal dot is connected as follows:

Finally, Kerman argues, the tax court gave him too much credit. He's just a simple man, "utterly uneducated in the complex tax arena — let alone the more byzantine tax-shelter realm." Appellant's Br. 48. Consequently, he was forced to rely on personal advisors. And, he argues, his reliance was reasonable even if his advisors had conflicts of interest.

So, what should I say about the opinion?  Prudence and respect for my readers time counsels that I should not say anything except the bullet points from the case.  So, I won't.

Tax Court Adopts Majority View to Impose Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalty Despite Concessions on Other Grounds (3/14/13)

I recently posted a discussion of a case, Crispin v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3852 (3d Cir. 2013), here, that had a good discussion of the current trend -- representing a majority view -- in the Circuits to impose the gross valuation misstatement penalty in Section 6662(h) despite a taxpayer's concession to disallow the claimed tax benefits on other bases than valuation misstatement.  See Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter Bites the Dust (2/26/13), here.  Yesterday, reversing its prior precedent, the Tax Court fell in line with the majority view in AHG Investments LLC et al. v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 7 (2013), here.  Of course, in all decided cases, under its Golsen precedent, the Tax Court must follow the precedent of the Circuit Court of Appeals to which an appeal would be taken, so its holding technically only affects cases in which the applicable Circuit Court of Appeals has not spoken.  In this regard, the Tax Court noted in footnote 5 of the opinion:

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue * * * , but the U.S. Government has recently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari as a result of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling for the taxpayer on a closely related issue in Woods v. United States, 471 Fed. Appx. 320 (5th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has not yet granted or denied the Government's petition.

There is a good discussion of the use of the Blue Book to help courts in interpreting a statute.  The Blue Book requires its own interpretation.  The minority view seems to have been based on a misinterpretation of the Blue Book which resulted in a misinterpretation of the statute.

Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter Bites the Dust (2/27/13)

We have yet another court rejection of a bullshit tax shelter.  Chemtech Royalty Associates LP et al. v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. 26329 (MD LA 2013), here  This time it is Dow Chemical who tried unsuccessfully to underpay its taxes and thus shift its share of the burden of Government to the citizens of this country.  This bullshit tax shelter was cooked up by Goldman Sachs in league with lawyers at King & Spalding.

The trial judge says:  "Both arrangements are enormously complicated in their construction and operation."  Which brings me to the features of a tax shelter.  I address this in my Federal Tax Procedure Book and this is a portion of that discussion (footnotes omitted):

Tax shelters are many and varied.  Some are outright fraudulent wrapped in what is disguised as a real deal.  The more sophisticated, however, are often without substance but do have some at least tenuous claim to legality.  Some of the characteristics that I have observed for tax shelters that the Government might perceive as abusive are that (i) the transaction is outside the mainstream activity of the taxpayer, (ii) the transaction is incredibly complex in its structure and steps so that not many (including specifically IRS auditors) will have the ability, tenacity, time and resources to trace it out to its illogical conclusion (this feature is often included to increase the taxpayer’s odds of winning the audit lottery); (iii) the transaction costs of the arrangement and risks involved, even where large relative to the deal, still have a favorable cost benefit/ratio only because of the tax benefits to be offered by the audit lottery, (iv) the promoters of the adventure make a lot more than even an hourly rate even at the high end for professionals (the so-called value added fee), which in the final analysis is simply a premium for putting the reputations and perhaps their freedom at risk to give a comfort opinion that the deal which will not work if discovered, and (v) the objective indications as to the taxpayer's purpose for entering the transaction are a tax savings motive rather than any type of purposive business or investment motive.  More succinctly, a Yale Law Professor has described an abusive tax shelter as “[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.”  Other thoughtful observers vary the theme, e.g. a tax shelter “is a deal done by very smart people who are pretending to be rather stupid themselves for financial gain.”

Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter Bites the Dust (2/26/13)

In Crispin v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3852 (3d Cir. 2013), here, as had the Tax Court, the Third Circuit smacked down yet another Bullshit tax shelter, this one of the CARDS variety.  Also, as had the Tax Court, the Third Circuit addressed the credibility of the taxpayer's representations of profit motive.

The CARDS Shelter.  Although the patched together CARDS transactions have nuances, here is the broad overview by the Third Circuit:

      A CARDS transaction is a tax-avoidance scheme that was widely marketed to wealthy individuals during the 1990's and early 2000's. It purports to generate, through a series of pre-arranged steps, large "paper" losses deductible from ordinary income. First, a tax-indifferent party, such as a foreign entity not subject to United States taxation, borrows foreign currency from a foreign bank (a "CARDS Loan"). Then, a United States taxpayer purchases a small amount, such as 15 percent, of the borrowed foreign currency by assuming liability for a an equal amount of the CARDS Loan. The taxpayer also agrees to be jointly liable with the foreign borrower for the remainder of the CARDS Loan and so the taxpayer purports to establish a basis equal to the entire borrowed amount. n3 Finally, the taxpayer exchanges the foreign currency he purchased for United States dollars. That exchange is a taxable event, and the taxpayer claims a loss equal to the full amount of his supposed basis in the CARDS Loan, less the proceeds of the relatively small amount of currency actually exchanged. The taxpayer uses that loss to shelter unrelated income. n4
   n3 The Commissioner contends that that step in the CARDS transaction "is predicated on an invalid application of the ... basis provisions of the Internal Revenue Code." (Appellee's Br. at 4.) Specifically, I.R.C. § 1012 provides that a taxpayer's basis in property is generally equal to the purchase price paid by the taxpayer. That purchase price includes the amount of the seller's liabilities assumed by the taxpayer as part of the purchase, on the assumption that the taxpayer will eventually repay those liabilities. See Comm'r v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300, 308-09 (1983) (noting that a loan must be recourse to the taxpayer to be included in basis). But in a CARDS transaction, the Commissioner argues, the taxpayer and the foreign borrower agree that the taxpayer will repay only the portion of the loan equal to the amount of currency the taxpayer actually purchases.
   n4 The general structure of a CARDS transaction is well and thoroughly set forth in Gustashaw v. Commissioner, 696 F.3d 1124, 1127-28, 1130-31 (11th Cir. 2012).

The following is the gravamen of the smack down on the merits -- actually lack of merits (footnote omitted):

Petitions for Cert Filed in Bullshit Tax Shelters to Resolve Lopsided Circuit Split on Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalty (1/16/13)

Tax Notes Today reports that two petitions for certiorari have been filed asking the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether a taxpayer's concession of a threshold problem -- such as lack of economic substance -- with a tax shelter precludes the IRS from applying the Section 6662(h), here, gross valuation misstatement penalty.  Notice that, in this statement of the issue presented, I have used the polite term -- tax shelter.  The equally accurate, less polite term that gives appropriate nuance to the stinkiness of the tax shelter is "bullshit tax shelter."  In effect, in these cases, the IRS applies the penalty and, upon filing the litigation, the taxpayer concedes that the tax shelter was a bullshit tax shelter so that the issue of whether the gross valuation misstatement was a disqualifier is never reached and therefore the penalty does not apply. So, in my view, we have a bullshit argument intended to mitigate the intended costs of taxpayer's investing in bullshit tax shelters.  Amazingly, two Circuits -- the Fifth and the Ninth -- have accepted the bullshit argument about the bullshit tax shelter.  Fortunately, critical mass among the circuits is against the bullshit argument -- 8 circuits reject it.  But the Fifth and Ninth Circuits remain intransigent, bestowing a largesse on taxpayers with bullshit tax shelters in their circuits that taxpayers in the other circuits do not get.

So the Government is asking the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict by applying the penalty.  (See docket here.)  The case is Woods v. United States, 471 Fed. Appx. 320 (5th Cir. 2012), a nonprecedential short-shrift opinion in its entirety as follows:

This Court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs and the record on appeal. Having  done so, we are convinced that this issue is well settled and that the district court should be affirmed. See Bemont Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, No. 10-41132,     F.3d    , 679 F.3d 339, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8505, 2012 WL 1435608 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2012); Heasley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 902 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1990); Todd v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 862 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1988).

The other petition for certiorari is filed by a taxpayer in one of the majority 8 circuits rejecting the bullshit argument in another bullshit tax shelter.  The case is Alpha I, L.P. v. United States, 682 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Supreme Court docket is here. The taxpayer there, having lost, claims offense that taxpayers in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits get better treatments for their bullshit tax shelters.  The taxpayer wants the Supreme Court to fix that problem by granting relief to the taxpayers in all circuits.