Reliance on Professional Advice Avoids Valuation Penalty

by Williams Mullen
Contact

In Whitehouse Hotel Ltd Partnership v. Commissioner, No. 13-60131 (6/11/2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Tax Court’s enforcement of a gross undervaluation penalty imposed on a taxpayer claiming a charitable deduction for a historic preservation façade conservation easement because the taxpayer obtained a qualified appraisal, analyzed the appraisal, sought a second appraisal, and submitted a professionally prepared tax return.  The Fifth Circuit deferred to the Tax Court’s determination of value.
 
Background.  In 1995, Whitehouse Hotel Limited Partnership (“Whitehouse”) purchased the Maison Blanche building in New Orleans with the intent to renovate it as a Ritz-Carlton hotel and condominium complex with retail space.  The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  In 1997, Whitehouse conveyed a conservation easement to maintain the appearance of the ornate terracotta façade.  Whitehouse claimed a charitable deduction of $7.445 million.  The Internal Revenue Service allowed a charitable deduction of $1.15 million and assessed a gross undervaluation penalty of 40%.
 
Whitehouse challenged the IRS’s valuation and the penalty in the Tax Court.  In 2008, the Tax Court determined that the value of the easement was significantly less than claimed by Whitehouse and enforced the gross valuation misstatement penalty.  Whitehouse appealed to the Fifth Circuit which, in 2010, remanded the case to the Tax Court for further consideration of value and vacated the penalty.  On remand, the Tax Court made clear that it disagreed with the Fifth Circuit, but revalued the easement as required by the Fifth Circuit and again upheld the penalty.  The Tax Court determined that the pre-easement value was $12,092,301 and the post-easement value was $10.3 million.  Whitehouse again appealed the Tax Court decision to the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit accepted the Tax Court’s findings of value, notwithstanding the Tax Court’s pushback and clear disagreement with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning, but rejected the imposition of the penalty.
 
Valuation Methods.  The Tax Court rejected the reproduction cost approach in valuing the easement because there would be little business reason to restore a historic structure to its historic form if it were completely destroyed.  The Fifth Circuit pointed out that the easement itself did not clearly require Whitehouse to restore the building if the building was totally destroyed.  The Fifth Circuit accepted the Tax Court’s finding that Whitehouse failed to show that it would be a reasonable business venture to reproduce the building if it were destroyed.  The Tax Court was not obligated to accept the reproduction cost method for valuation of the easement.
 
The Fifth Circuit also held that the Tax Court was not required to accept the income approach.  The Tax Court determined that Whitehouse’s appraiser’s income model was prone to error and based on too many unverifiable assumptions.  Because of that, the Tax Court was free to reject the income approach.
 
The Tax court relied on the comparable sale method to determine the value of the conservation easement.  It rejected non-local comparable sales even though Whitehouse’s appraiser concluded that the luxury hotel market is national, rather than local, and even though the IRS’s appraiser also agreed generally with the concept of looking outside the local area for comparables.  The Tax Court agreed that one could look outside the local market, but believed that the local comparisons were more probative of value.  It was not error for the Tax Court to reject non-local comparable sales.
 
The Penalty.  A gross valuation misstatement penalty is imposed if the taxpayer misstates a charitable deduction by 400% or more.  In 1997, a taxpayer would not be liable for the penalty if the misstatement fell within the reasonable cause exception.  To qualify for the exception, the taxpayer needed to show (1) that the claimed value was based on a qualified appraisal made by a qualified appraiser and (2) that the taxpayer made a good faith investigation of the value of the property.  See IRC §6664(c). 
 
Since 2006, the reasonable cause exception no longer applies to a gross valuation overstatement.  It does apply to a substantial valuation overstatement.
 
Whitehouse Actions.  The IRS conceded that the taxpayer’s appraisal was a qualified appraisal.  The issue before the court was whether Whitehouse had made a good faith investigation into the value of the easement.
 
Whitehouse purchased the building for $8 million in 1995.  It was appraised for $96 million in 1997.  The appraiser determined a post-easement value of $88,555,000.
 
Whitehouse obtained a second appraisal as a check on the first appraisal.  This second appraisal was only for the fair market value of the building.  It was not an appraisal of the easement.  It was performed by a company that, at the time, was a limited partner in Whitehouse.
 
Whitehouse relied on its tax counsel and accountants.  Its return was prepared by its financial auditors.  Whitehouse did nothing more to investigate the value of its easement.
 
The Tax Court rejected the first appraisal.  It concluded that Whitehouse should have done more to investigate the value of the property when the appraised value was significantly more than what Whitehouse had paid for the property just a few years prior.
 
The Fifth Circuit disagreed with the Tax Court.  It reasserted the principle that when an accountant or attorney advises a taxpayer on a matter of tax law, it is reasonable for the taxpayer to rely on that advice.  Determining whether a taxpayer acts with reasonable cause must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  It said that the Tax Court “imposed an excessively high standard of proof for actual reliance on the advice of competent tax professionals.”  The Fifth Circuit concluded that Whitehouse’s reliance on qualified tax professionals was sufficient to qualify as a good faith investigation.  Whitehouse had obtained a qualified appraiser, commissioned a second appraisal as a check and submitted a professionally prepared tax return.
 
Conclusion.  Whether a taxpayer has acted with reasonable cause is determined on a case-by-case basis.  However, the Fifth Circuit determined that the Tax Court clearly erred when it enforced a penalty even though the taxpayer had relied on professional advice.  Therefore, taxpayers will want to have tax counsel involved in charitable gifts and have their returns professionally prepared.  Taxpayers might also want to obtain a second appraiser to verify the value of hard to value gifts.  Taxpayers should also be aware that the Tax Court and the Fifth Circuit do not always have the same views on when professional advice is sufficient to avoid an undervaluation penalty.  Therefore, taxpayers can expect that the Tax Court will continue to enforce undervaluation penalties under similar circumstances unless the case is appealable to the Fifth Circuit.

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.

© Williams Mullen | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Williams Mullen
Contact
more
less

Williams Mullen 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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!