Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
We are particularly concerned about two of the Joint Committee staff’s recommendations: to eliminate altogether the deduction for donation of a conservation easement on “personal residence” property, and to reduce the deduction for donation on other property to one third of the diminution in value.
First, if the “personal residence” provision had been in effect, virtually none of the existing conservation easements in Rappahannock County, which cover about 15'/c of the privately owned land in the county, would have been eligible for a charitable income tax deduction; because virtually all the easements in place cover land on which the owner resides, many of them on working farms. For example, a family that has owned and lived on its large farm for generations recently donated a conservation easement restricting subdivision of some 1800 acres— an enormous benefit to all the residents of the county, preserving open space forever. Without tax deductibility, one questions whether such a donation for the public benefit would have taken place.
Second, we submit that there can be no justification for discriminating against dona- ‘ tions of conservation easements by cutting the allowable deduction by two thirds of the loss of value of the affected property. The Internal Revenue Service has plenty of capability to prevent abuses of the deductibility provisions and ensure that appraisals of lost value are fair and accurate. The Service’s vigorous enforcement of the law against taxpayers claiming
92.9%