From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Boltar, LLC v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
136 T.C. 326 (2011)
In 1999, Boltar, LLC (plaintiff) obtained two 10-acre parcels of land. The southern parcel was encumbered by a 50-foot-wide utility easement. In December 2003, Boltar donated an easement to a charitable land trust that restricted the use of eight acres of the southern parcel, preventing any use of the property that would significantly impair or interfere with the property’s conservation values. In Boltar’s 2003 federal partnership tax return, Boltar claimed a charitable-contribution deduction of $3,245,000 for the donated easement. Boltar claimed that the easement’s fair market value was $3,270,000 as of December 31, 2003. In support of that valuation, Boltar submitted an appraisal opining that the “highest and best use” of the eased property was residential development. The appraisal calculated the value of the easement as the difference between the foregone opportunity of developing 174 condominiums on the land, estimated at $3,340,000, less the value of the land as vacant, estimated at $68,000. However, the appraisal’s proposed condominium project assumed a 10-acre parcel of property, rather than the eight acres subject to the easement, and also ignored the preexisting utility easement. The appraisal also failed to evaluate whether the property could be annexed and rezoned to allow the condominium development, and it included other factual errors and unrealistic assumptions about the property’s value. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) issued a final partnership administrative adjustment for 2003 that allowed only $42,400 of Boltar’s claimed charitable deduction for the easement. Boltar challenged the commissioner’s determination in the United States Tax Court. The commissioner sought to exclude Boltar’s appraisal as unreliable and presented evidence to the tax court that the highest and best use of the eased property was single-family residential development, not condominiums.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cohen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.