Attorney-at-Law

“RA” DOES NOT MEAN “REALTY APPRAISER”

In Uncategorized on 07/20/2022 at 18:28

Even though his trusty attorneys posit that fact, it does not avail Donald W. Thompson, T. C. Memo. 2022-80, filed 7/20/22. Don (hereinafter “Golfer Don,” for reasons appearing infra, as my expensive colleagues say) claims that the 40% overvaluation chop bestowed on him is invalid because neither the RA who prepared the CPAP nor his supervisor were qualified realty appraisers. Golfer Don wants cross-examination as to their expertise.

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber isn’t buying.

“Petitioner misapprehends the requirements of section 6751(b). That provision is captioned ‘Approval of Assessment,’ not “Explanation of Assessment.” See Pickens Decorative Stone, LLC v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2022-22, at *7. As we have said before: “The written supervisory approval requirement . . . requires just that: written supervisory approval.” Ibid. (quoting Raifman, 116 T.C.M. (CCH) at 28).

“We have repeatedly rejected any suggestion that a penalty approval form or other document must ‘demonstrate the depth or comprehensiveness of the supervisor’s review.’ Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 17. Indeed, because petitioner’s claimed deductions presupposed that the Property had appreciated by 890% in just over a year, the IRS did not need a formal appraisal to support its determination that a valuation misstatement likely existed. In any event we have held that a supervising attorney’s signature on an answer, without more, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for penalties first asserted in the answer. See Roth v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-248, 114 T.C.M. (CCH) 649, 652 (finding an associate area counsel’s signature on an answer sufficient), aff’d, 922 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2019).” T. C. Memo. 2022-80, at p. 9. (Footnote omitted, but it says Golfer Don’s discovery is irrelevant because it wouldn’t change the outcome.) I’ve blogged all these cases, of course.

My ultra-hip readers have already sussed out this is more marked-up boondockery. Don paid a-million-two, and sixteen (count ’em, sixteen) months later gave a conservation easement to the striving, thriving City of North Augusta, SC, just over the river from the Home of the Masters (and Fort Gordon, home of the Signal School, the MP School, and one-time duty station of your reporter).

Golfer Don valued the easement at ten-million-nine-plus; he threw in the dilithium crystals, but left out the golf course, concession stands, rest stations, and other usual golf course amenities. And he could hold tournaments there.

Of course, easements out at extinguishment. IRS trashes the deduction, trusty attorneys play the Hewitt gambit, and Scholar Al, Golsenized to 11 Cir, denies IRS summary J on the deduction, without prejudice to renewal should things change, but gives it to them on the Boss Hossery.

“Without prejudice to renewal” is Judgespeak for “if IRS goes to the Supremes on the Hewitt-Oakbrook Circuit split and wins.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: