IRS Disapproval of Valuation Method Does Not Prevent There Being A Qualified Appraisal


To obtain a charitable deduction for many contributions of property, the taxpayer is required to obtain a “qualified appraisal” and submit that appraisal with the income tax return. Treas. Regs. §1.170A-13(c)(ii) contains a laundry list of items that imagemust be included in the appraisal for it to be qualified appraisal. One of these items is a description of the “method of valuation used to determine the fair market value, such as the income approach, the market-data approach, and the replacement-cost-less-depreciation approach.”

If the IRS can show that no qualified appraisal was submitted, then it will seek to disallow the charitable deduction in full. If, instead, the IRS contests the appraised value, then the parties will negotiate, or fight out in court, over what is the appropriate value for deduction purposes. Obviously, for a taxpayer, it is better to be in the latter scenario (some deduction) than the former (no deduction).

In a recent case, the Tax Court had ruled that the above descriptive requirement was not met when an appraisal for a donated conservation easement described the appraisal method as the before-and-after method, using a fixed percentage reduction in the after-contribution value to determine the before value, and thus the value of the contribution. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now reversed the Tax Court. In its opinion, the Court noted that the above qualified appraisal requirement did not require that the valuation method be one that the IRS accepted – the requirement only goes to whether the method was properly identified. More particularly, the Court said:

For the purpose of gauging compliance with the reporting requirement, it is irrelevant that the IRS believes the method employed was sloppy or inaccurate, or haphazardly applied—it remains a method, and Drazner described it. The regulation requires only that the appraiser identify the valuation method “used”; it does not require that the method adopted be reliable.

Scheidelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (6/15/12)


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Charles (Chuck) Rubin, Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher P.A. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher P.A. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.