T.C. Memo. 2009-145 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

KIVA DUNES CONSERVATION, LLC, E.A. DRUMMOND, TAX MATTERS PARTNER,

Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 13196-06. Filed June 22, 2009.

David M. Wooldridge, for petitioner.

Linda J. Wise and John W. Sheffield, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WELLS, Judge: By notice of final partnership administrative

adjustment (FPAA), respondent disallowed a charitable

contribution deduction claimed by Kiva Dunes Conservation LLC

(Kiva Dunes) for its grant to the North American Land Trust

(NALT) of a perpetual conservation easement covering a golf
- 2 -

1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as

amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure.

course that it owned. Respondent also determined that a section

66621 accuracy-related penalty applies. 

After trial, respondent conceded on brief that Kiva Dunes is

entitled to a section 170(a)(1) charitable contribution deduction

for 2002. Consequently, the issues remaining for our decision

are: (1) The value of the perpetual conservation easement, and

therefore, the amount of the allowable deduction under section

170(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (h); and (2) whether a section 6662 

accuracy-related penalty applies. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Some of the facts and certain exhibits have been stipulated

by the parties. The stipulation of facts is incorporated in this

opinion, and the stipulated facts are so found. The tax matters

partner of Kiva Dunes is E.A. Drummond, the petitioner. We will

refer to E.A. Drummond as petitioner when we refer to him in his

capacity as tax matters partner and Mr. Drummond when we refer to

him in his individual capacity. At the time of the filing of the

petition, the principal place of business for Kiva Dunes was in

Alabama. 
- 3 -

2The Fort Morgan Peninsula lies between the Gulf of Mexico

on the south and Mobile Bay and Bon Secour Bay on the north. The

peninsula is approximately 22 miles long and ranges in width from

1.2 miles to 3.1 miles. U.S. Highway 180 runs east-west through

the peninsula. In total, Baldwin County has 32 miles of gulf

coastline that is consistently ranked as one of the most

beautiful beach destinations in the United States.

3The Kiva Dunes subdivision consists of 163 residential

lots, 30 of which are on the beach. 

On June 6, 1992, Mr. Drummond purchased real property on the

Fort Morgan Peninsula2 in Baldwin County, Alabama, from the

Resolution Trust Corporation for $1,050,000 (RTC property). The

RTC property is 12.5 miles west of the intersection of Alabama

Highways 59 and 180 and consists of approximately 228 acres south

of Highway 180 and approximately 23 acres north of Highway 180. 

On December 10, 1993, Mr. Drummond formed D&E Investments,

LLC (D&E), an Alabama limited liability company that elected to

be taxed as a partnership for Federal income tax purposes. By

quitclaim deed dated January 26, 1994, Mr. Drummond conveyed his

interest in the RTC property to D&E. 

During 1994 D&E initiated the development of a residential

resort community on the RTC property consisting of a gated,

residential subdivision (the Kiva Dunes subdivision)3 and a Jerry

Pate-designed 140.9-acre golf course (Kiva Dunes Golf Course). 

The planned resort community also features swimming pools, tennis

courts, and beach access. 
- 4 -

4During 1996 Kiva Dunes Golf Course was rated the No. 2

public golf course in the United States. 

5A permitted use of the encumbered property could be that of

a golf course, a park, or an agricultural enterprise. 

Contemporaneously with the contribution of the easement to NALT,

Kiva Dunes leased Kiva Dunes Golf Course, subject to the

easement, to D&E for the purpose of operating the golf course. 

As of trial, D&E continued to operate the golf course. 

During 1995 Kiva Dunes Golf Course was completed and opened

to the public,4 and soon thereafter the individual residential

lots began selling. 

On December 26, 2002, Mr. Drummond formed Kiva Dunes, an

Alabama limited liability company, that elected to be taxed as a

partnership for Federal income tax purposes. On December 27,

2002, D&E executed a warranty deed conveying Kiva Dunes Golf

Course to Kiva Dunes. 

On December 31, 2002, Kiva Dunes placed a perpetual

conservation easement (easement) on Kiva Dunes Golf Course and

donated the easement to NALT.5 Kiva Dunes filed a Form 1065,

U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for the tax period ended

December 31, 2002, on which it claimed a charitable contribution

deduction of $30,588,235 for the easement. This amount was based

on an appraisal prepared by petitioner’s expert in the instant

case, Claud Clark (Mr. Clark). Kiva Dunes also reported a

$35,000 cash contribution to NALT. 

Respondent issued an FPAA to Kiva Dunes determining that it

was not entitled to the claimed deduction for the easement or the
- 5 -

6Respondent stipulates that petitioner is entitled to a

charitable contribution deduction for the $35,000 cash

contribution to NALT.

$35,000 cash contribution and that a section 6662 accuracyrelated penalty applies.6 

OPINION

A taxpayer is entitled to deduct, pursuant to section

170(a), a qualified conservation contribution made within a

taxable year. Sec. 170(c), (f)(3)(B)(iii), (h); see Hughes v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-94. As noted above, after trial

respondent conceded that Kiva Dunes’s grant of the easement is a

qualified conservation contribution pursuant to section 170(h)

and that Kiva Dunes is entitled to a deduction under section

170(a). Consequently, we need decide only the value of the

easement for purposes of determining the amount of the allowable

deduction and whether a section 6662 accuracy-related penalty

applies. 

Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and a taxpayer

bears the burden of proving entitlement to any claimed

deductions. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84

(1992). Moreover, the Commissioner’s determination of value is

normally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving that the determination is incorrect. See Rule 142(a);
- 6 -

7Petitioner does not argue that sec. 7491(a) applies to

shift the burden of proof to respondent. Nonetheless, we decide

the instant case on the evidence in the record and need not

address which party bears the burden of proof.

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Schwab v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-232.7

Generally, the amount of a charitable contribution is the

fair market value of the contributed property at the time it is

contributed. Sec. 1.170A-1(a), (c)(1), Income Tax Regs. Fair

market value is the price at which property would change hands

between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under

any compulsion to buy or sell and both having a reasonable

knowledge of relevant facts. Sec. 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income Tax

Regs. 

In deciding the fair market value of property, we must take

into account not only the current use of the property but also

its highest and best use. See Stanley Works & Subs. v.

Commissioner, 87 T.C. 389, 400 (1986); sec. 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i)

and (ii), Income Tax Regs. A property’s highest and best use is

the highest and most profitable use for which it is adaptable and

needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future. 

Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934). The highest

and best use can be any realistic, objective potential use of the

property. Symington v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 892, 896 (1986). 
- 7 -

Under circumstances where there is a substantial record of

sales of easements comparable to a donated easement, the fair

market value of the donated easement is based on the sale prices

of those comparable easements. Sec. 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i), Income

Tax Regs. Where, as in the instant case, there is no established

market for similar conservation easements and no record exists of

sales of such easements, the regulations provide a method to

determine fair market value:

If no substantial record of market-place sales is 

available to use as a meaningful or valid comparison, 

as a general rule (but not necessarily in all cases) 

the fair market value of a perpetual conservation 

restriction is equal to the difference between the 

fair market value of the property it encumbers 

before the granting of the restriction and the fair

market value of the encumbered property after the

granting of the restriction. * * *

Sec. 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs.

We have used a “before and after” methodology in evaluating

conservation easements. Browning v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 303,

315 (1997); Hughes v. Commissioner, supra. The parties in the

instant case agree that the before and after methodology is the

appropriate valuation method to determine the fair market value

of the easement. 

Additionally, any enhancement in the value of a donor’s

other property resulting from the easement contribution, or of

property owned by certain related persons, reduces the value of
- 8 -

the contribution deduction. Sec. 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i), Income Tax

Regs. 

Valuation is not a precise science, and the fair market

value of property on a given date is a question of fact to be

resolved on the basis of the entire record. See, e.g., Kaplan v.

Commissioner, 43 T.C. 663, 665 (1965); Arbini v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2001-141. In the instant case, each party has offered

the report and testimony of an expert witness to establish the

value of the easement for purposes of arriving at the proper

amount of Kiva Dunes’s charitable contribution deduction. 

An expert’s opinion is admissible if it assists the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. 

Fed. R. Evid. 702. We evaluate expert opinions in the light of

the expert’s demonstrated qualifications and all other evidence

in the record. See Parker v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 547, 561

(1986). Where experts offer competing estimates of fair market

value, we decide how to weigh those estimates by, inter alia,

examining the factors they considered in reaching their

conclusions. See Casey v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 357, 381 (1962). 

We are not bound by the opinion of any expert witness, and we may

accept or reject expert testimony in the exercise of our sound

judgment. Helvering v. Natl. Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282 (1938);

Estate of Newhouse v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 193, 217 (1990). We

may also reach a decision as to the value of property that is
- 9 -

8MAI is a designation awarded to qualifying members of the

American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and within the

appraisal community is viewed as the most highly regarded

appraisal designation. See Estate of Auker v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1998-185.

based on our own examination of the evidence in the record. 

Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir. 1976),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-285. 

Petitioner’s Expert

Mr. Clark is a professional real estate appraiser and has

decades of experience in Baldwin County. He has lived and worked

in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for 22 years

and owns and has owned property on the Fort Morgan Peninsula. 

Mr. Clark performs more appraisal work in Baldwin County than any

other appraiser, and he has a great depth of knowledge of the

comparable properties used in valuing the easement and of the

surrounding local real estate market. 

Respondent’s Expert

Philip Paulk (Mr. Paulk) is a Member of the Appraisal

Institute (MAI).8 He has spent a substantial portion of his

appraisal career in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Paulk recently moved

to, and has offices in, Birmingham, Alabama, 250 miles from Kiva

Dunes Golf Course. Mr. Paulk has no particular expertise in

Baldwin County, and he has been to the Baldwin County, Alabama,

area only twice in connection with his appraisal of the easement.
- 10 -

9We note that it is not unusual in valuation cases that two

expert appraisers reach significantly different conclusions. The

instant case poses such a dilemma, and, consequently, the

(continued...)

Valuation of the Easement

Each party’s expert determined before and after values of

Kiva Dunes Golf Course and considered the issue of enhancement of

other property owned by Kiva Dunes or related parties. Each

expert’s conclusions as to the fair market value of the easement

were computed by subtracting his estimate of the after value and

of any enhancement from his estimate of the before value.

Fair Market Value of Kiva Dunes Golf Course Before Conservation

Easement

Each of the experts concluded that the highest and best use

of Kiva Dunes Golf Course at the time of the contribution of the

easement would have been for the development of a residential

subdivision. To reach their respective before value estimates,

both experts used a discounted cashflow analysis of estimated

revenues and costs associated with the development and sale of

lots in a hypothetical subdivision. However, certain of their

assumptions differed in important ways; namely, the number of

lots available for sale, the average sale price of the lots, and

the rate at which the lots would sell. The differences in their

assumptions led to a dramatic difference in their respective

before value estimates: Mr. Clark’s was $31,938,985, and Mr.

Paulk’s was $10,018,000.9 We examine the critical assumptions
- 11 -

9(...continued)

credibility of the experts’ determinations is of paramount

importance. For our purposes, a useful tool with which to

measure the reasonableness of the experts’ assumptions is the

2005 purchase price for the Woodlands Golf Course (Woodlands).

Woodlands was approximately 15 miles (and 6 miles inland) from

Kiva Dunes Golf Course. Woodlands was purchased for $17,800,000

for the purpose of developing a residential apartment community

and was comparable in size to Kiva Dunes Golf Course. 

Petitioner argues that the Woodlands sale price “calls into

question the opinions and assumptions of Paulk concerning the

Before Value * * * and provides clear evidence that the low

Before Value assigned by Paulk was not based in reality.” 

Specifically, petitioner contends “that proximity to the beach is

a significant value factor for residential uses * * *. The

popularity and high-end residential use of land on the Fort

Morgan Peninsula property gives the * * * [Kiva Dunes Golf

Course] a substantially higher value than a similar property used

for residential (apartment) purposes several miles north, away

from the beach.” After considering the evidence in the record,

we agree.

The experts in the instant case recognize that proximity to

the beach imparts a premium to the value of real estate. With

Kiva Dunes Golf Course sitting on one of the most beautiful

stretches of coastline in the United States, a willing buyer and

a willing seller would necessarily anticipate a premium price for

the property. Mr. Paulk’s before value, which falls $7,782,000

short of the Woodlands sale price, does not reflect adequately

the superior locale of Kiva Dunes Golf Course and is not, as

petitioner persuasively argues, “based in reality”. 

10The subject property was zoned R-6. This permitted the

development of six homes per acre. 

made by each expert and decide the plausibility of those

assumptions in reaching an appropriate before value for Kiva

Dunes Golf Course.

1. Lots Available for Sale

Mr. Clark determined that 370 lots could be developed for

sale in his hypothetical subdivision.10 Wayne Dyess (Mr. Dyess),

the planning and zoning director of the Baldwin County Zoning
- 12 -

11The 2002 Baldwin County Zoning Regulations, sec. 23.3(d),

provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(d) Open Space Reservation.

(1) A minimum of 20 percent of the gross land 

area shall be set aside for permanent open space

for the purpose of providing parks, recreational

facilities, pedestrian ways, and/or for conserving sensitive elements of the environment

including but not limited to slopes, streams,

ponds, watercourses, wetlands, floodways and 

floodplains.

a. Stormwater detention ponds, retention

ponds, or similar holding basins for

stormwater shall not be included in the 

20-percent open space requirement.

b. A minimum of 50 percent of the required 

open space must be contiguous and must be 

usable for passive or active recreation 

 purposes. The usable open space shall not 

include steep slopes, streams, ponds, 

 watercourses, wetlands, floodways and/or 

floodplains. 

12To the contrary, Mr. Dyess testified that gross land area

includes “everything within the boundaries of [a] particular

development”. Mr. Dyess further opined on whether 50 percent of

the open space in Mr. Clark’s conceptual plan was “contiguous and

* * * usable for passive or active recreation” purposes as

(continued...)

Board, agreed. Mr. Paulk concluded that a local zoning

regulation11 would limit development on the property to 300 lots. 

Mr. Paulk’s conclusion, however, was based on an erroneous

interpretation of the regulation. Specifically, Mr. Paulk’s

conclusion was based upon his determination that “gross land

area” did not include slopes, streams, ponds, watercourses,

wetlands, floodways, and floodplains.12 Consequently, Mr.
- 13 -

12(...continued)

required by the regulation. Initially, Mr. Dyess stated: “In

looking at (the plan), not having the exact numbers, typically it

doesn’t look like they’re going to have the 50-percent. To be

definitive, we’d want to see the numbers”. Ultimately, Mr. Dyess

conceded that the plan design could be adjusted to meet the

contiguous requirement. Notably, however, he never suggested

that such an adjustment would require a reduction in the number

of lots available or the elimination of any of the proposed

manmade lakes. 

13Respondent takes the position that the presence of a local

beach wildlife inhabitant of the area near Kiva Dunes Golf

Course, the federally protected Alabama beach mouse, would have a

profound impact on the development of the proposed subdivision. 

Specifically, respondent contends that Mr. Clark did not account

for the time and cost that would be associated with securing the

necessary permits in developing the property. From the evidence

before us, we are not persuaded that the presence of the Alabama

beach mouse would have significantly affected the development of

Kiva Dunes Golf Course. We note that Mr. Paulk’s report makes no

reference to the Alabama beach mouse, and there is no adjustment

in Mr. Paulk’s values to account for any potential delay or

expense associated with the potential impact that the presence of

the Alabama beach mouse might have on the development. Indeed,

both experts agree that projected sales of the hypothetical lots

would have begun closing on Dec. 31, 2003. Moreover, Aaron

Valenta, a regional habitat conservation plan coordinator for the

Fish and Wildlife Service, testified that Kiva Dunes Golf Course

does not fall within the Alabama beach mouse’s critical habitat. 

Ultimately, no evidence or testimony was offered that would

support a finding that the presence of the Alabama beach mouse

would prevent the development of the proposed subdivision. 

Paulk’s interpretation substantially reduced the available land

for lot development because he excluded the lakes and wetlands on

Kiva Dunes Golf Course. Ultimately, Mr. Paulk admitted that Mr.

Clark’s 370-lot subdivision was viable. We conclude that it was

reasonable to assume that 370 lots could be developed on Kiva

Dunes Golf Course.13 
- 14 -

14Mr. Edgmon testified that Baldwin County was the “secondfastest-growing county in Alabama and maybe the top 50 or 70 in

(continued...)

2. Average Lot Price 

Mr. Clark concluded that the initial lot price in his

hypothetical subdivision would average $170,000. In reaching

this value, Mr. Clark considered a number of variables: The

quality of the lots, market demand, and comparable sales.

Mr. Clark’s conceptual plan proposed the enlargement of

several lakes and the creation of several pool and recreation

areas on Kiva Dunes Golf Course. Consequently, approximately 70

percent of his proposed lots (258 out of 370) would front the

lakes. Both experts agree that this lake frontage factor alone

would have a significant impact on lot value. Additionally, Jim

Edgmon (Mr. Edgmon), an agent of D&E and manager of Kiva Dunes

Golf Course, testified that all of the lots would have access to

the amenities of the adjacent Kiva Dunes subdivision, including

the use of tennis courts, swimming pools, beach walkovers, and

dedicated areas on the beach itself. Moreover, the lots in the

hypothetical subdivision would frequently have beautiful views of

Mobile Bay.

Mr. Clark also considered the market for house lots in

Baldwin County in reaching his initial lot price. The total

population in Baldwin County from 1990 through 2000 (the period

shortly before the valuation date) increased 42.87 percent.14
- 15 -

14(...continued)

the country.” 

15The statistical data for population and household growth

was included in Mr. Paulk’s report.

16Mr. Clark testified that neighboring subdivisions were

approaching sellout. 

17Extraction is a method of estimating land value in which

the depreciated cost of the improvements on the improved property

is estimated and deducted from the total sale price to arrive at

an estimated sale price for the land. Appraisal Institute, The

Appraisal of Real Estate 335 (12th ed. 2001). Mr. Paulk offered

no criticism as to Mr. Clark’s extraction values. 

18Martinique is approximately 1 mile east of Kiva Dunes Golf

Course off Highway 180. It is a single-family development with

ample lakes, a swimming pool, tennis courts, and convenient

access to the beach. 

Total households during that same period correspondingly

increased 49.38 percent, and the median home price increased 88.2

percent.15 Mr. Clark opined that the population surge, coupled

with a dwindling supply of available home sites,16 would increase

demand, and the selling price, for the proposed lots.

As a final consideration, Mr. Clark looked to local sales of

properties he believed were nearest in quality to the proposed

lots. He noted several 2002 sales of developed lots (land price

computed by extraction)17 in the neighboring Martinique

Development (Martinique).18 Martinique’s sales ranged from

$160,000 to $306,700. Mr. Clark also examined several 2002 and

early 2003 sales of “off-of-the-beach” lots at the Kiva Dunes

subdivision ranging in price from $110,000 to $160,000. In
- 16 -

19As set forth above, Mr. Clark testified that the majority

of lots in the proposed subdivision would front lakes. In his

report, Mr. Clark’s data is suggestive of the appeal and premium

value of lake front property in Baldwin County. For instance,

“lake view” lots at Tannin Village averaged $22.88 per square

foot, whereas “open view” lots at the Kiva Dunes subdivision

averaged only $14.16 per square foot. “Limited view” lots at the

Kiva Dunes subdivision averaged a mere $8.65 per square foot. 

20Lot 113 sold for $108,865, and lot 69 sold for $55,685. 

The actual average for these lots, $82,275, was then increased 3

percent for appreciation to arrive at a reconciled initial value

per lot of $85,000, rounded. 

21In his report, Mr. Paulk expressly states that his

conclusions as to initial lot price are “Based on recent interior

lot sales at Kiva Dunes.” (Emphasis added.) 

highlighting his Kiva Dunes subdivision comparables, Mr. Clark

stressed that their quality and size were inferior to those of

the proposed lots.19 

In contrast, Mr. Paulk determined that the initial lot price

in his hypothetical subdivision would average $85,000. In

arriving at that number, Mr. Paulk testified, he averaged the

2001 sale prices of just two interior lots sold at the Kiva Dunes

subdivision.20 In other words, Mr. Paulk assumed that two of the

least desirable lots in the Kiva Dunes subdivision would be of

comparable quality to that of the hypothetical lots.21 Mr.

Paulk’s proposed lots would not front the lakes, would not have

views of Mobile Bay or any lakes, and would be far removed from

the amenities of the Kiva Dunes subdivision. We conclude that

Mr. Paulk’s assumptions are not realistic because they fail to

rely on comparable lot characteristics.
- 17 -

22Morgantown is a single-family residential development on

the south side of Highway 180 approximately one-half mile west of

Kiva Dunes Golf Course.

23Peninsula is a single-family residential golf course

community on the north side of Highway 180 approximately 5 miles

west of Highway 59.

24Mr. Paulk designates the average lot sale price for

Martinique in a separate section as “N/A”, the only such property

to receive that designation in his report. 

Mr. Paulk’s testimony at trial is inconsistent with his

appraisal in several respects. In his report Mr. Paulk stresses

that “Most lots in the [proposed] development will have water

views of the onsite lakes”. Moreover, Mr. Paulk reports that the

proposed subdivision closely resembles Martinique, yet he does

not give any consideration to the actual sale prices of its lots

in computing his initial lot price. For instance, he lists the

average selling prices of lots at developments Morgantown22

($74,000), Peninsula23 ($42,500), and the Kiva Dunes subdivision

($82,275), yet he curiously assigns a value for average lot sales

for Martinique at zero.24 As set forth above, Martinique lots

were selling for much more than the residential lots at the Kiva

Dunes subdivision. 

We conclude that Martinique possesses many of the

characteristics of Mr. Clark’s hypothetical subdivision and

provides the most accurate representation of the quality and

value of the proposed lots. Mr. Paulk’s assumption that the

quality of the proposed lots would mirror that of two inferior
- 18 -

25Sales for 2001 totaled 22, and sales reported for half of

2002 totaled 14.

lots at the Kiva Dunes subdivision is unavailing. We conclude

that Mr. Clark’s analysis is persuasive and that an initial lot

price of $170,000 for the hypothetical subdivision is reasonable. 

3. Absorption Rate

Mr. Clark assumed that his 370-lot subdivision would sell

out in 10 years, averaging sales of 37 lots per year. In making

his assumption, he compared absorption data from local

developments, including the Kiva Dunes subdivision and

Martinique. Mr. Paulk, on the other hand, assumed his 300-lot

subdivision would sell out in 15 years, averaging sales of 20

lots per year. Mr. Paulk appears to have relied exclusively on

absorption data from Martinique to forecast his absorption rate. 

Both experts relied on Martinique in support of their

respective assumptions on the issue of the proper absorption

rate. Indeed, as set forth above, the quality of the lots at

Martinique, its amenity package, and its location mirror those of

the proposed subdivision. Accordingly, we conclude that

Martinique is a useful gauge of an appropriate absorption rate. 

Sales at Martinique were brisk during 2000 (25 sales).25 A

former sales agent at Martinique to which Mr. Clark’s report

refers indicated that sales were “slowed by the construction

pace”, and that “the lots could have sold out much quicker” had
- 19 -

26Martinique comprises 104 developed lots.

27Mr. Clark estimated lot appreciation at 5 percent;

developer’s profit at 20 percent; sales commissions at 6 percent;

(continued...)

they been sold as vacant lots. Mr. Clark testified that the

demand for vacant lots was “feverish” as existing developments

were approaching sellout, and Mr. Paulk’s data in his report

corroborates Mr. Clark’s conclusions. For instance, by 2005 the

Kiva Dunes subdivision, Morgantown, and Martinique had sold out. 

Considering that the proposed plan would have had more than

three times as many lots available for purchase as Martinique,26

we conclude that a sales forecast of 37 lots per year is

reasonable. 

Having found Mr. Clark’s assumptions as to the available

lots for sale (370), initial lot price ($170,000), and annual

rate of lot sales (37 per year) reasonable, we need not address

in detail the remaining assumptions made by the experts in

deriving their respective before value opinions, as they are

largely offsetting. To illustrate, if we incorporate Mr. Clark’s

aforementioned assumptions into Mr. Paulk’s discounted cashflow

computation, leaving intact Mr. Paulk’s remaining assumptions as

to lot appreciation (3 percent), developer’s profit (12 percent),

sales commissions (6 percent), closing/marketing costs (3

percent), property taxes ($504/lot), and discount rate (12

percent), Mr. Paulk’s before value would amount to $29,948,799.27
- 20 -

27(...continued)

closing costs/overhead at 3 percent; and a discount rate at 9.5

percent. 

28We do not, however, decide that petitioner is entitled to

a higher before value than that determined by Mr. Clark.

29During 2007 Mr. Clark prepared and submitted a

supplemental report in which he opined on the economic health of

the golf industry for 2007. At trial, he testified that his new

data (information Mr. Clark admits would not have been available

to a hypothetical buyer and seller during 2002) suggests that the

continued operation of Kiva Dunes Golf Course as a golf course

(continued...)

If we further incorporate respondent’s concession on brief as to

Mr. Clark’s 5-percent lot appreciation rate, Mr. Paulk’s before

value would increase an additional $2,365,759. Ultimately, with

the foregoing substitutions, Mr. Paulk’s before value

($32,314,558) would exceed Mr. Clark’s before value ($31,938,985)

by $375,573.28

We conclude that Mr. Clark’s testimony is credible and his

assumptions are reasonable and amply supported by the evidence

presented at trial and in his report. Moreover, we conclude that

the Woodlands sale is corroborative evidence of the

reasonableness of Mr. Clark’s conclusions. Accordingly, we

assign a before value to Kiva Dunes Golf Course of $31,938,985. 

Fair Market Value of Kiva Dunes Golf Course After Conservation

Easement

The experts agree that immediately after the charitable

contribution, the highest and best use of Kiva Dunes Golf Course

was the continued operation of the golf course.29 However, in
- 21 -

29(...continued)

would not be the highest and best use of the property. In

support of his “new position”, Mr. Clark highlighted a recent

golf course closure, diminishing rounds played in Baldwin County,

and recent losses sustained by several local courses. On brief,

respondent argues vociferously that “[Mr.] Clark’s vacillation on

the highest and best use of the property after the donation

presents insurmountable obstacles for petitioner in establishing

the fair market value of the property after the donation.” We

disagree. 

The fair market value of Kiva Dunes Golf Course should be

based on its highest and best use on its valuation date. See

Stanley Works v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 389, 400 (1986); sec.

1.170A-14(h)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs. In other words, the

information Mr. Clark used to determine the highest and best use

of the property must be limited to information that would have

been available to the hypothetical buyer or seller on the date of

the donation. Accordingly, we assign no weight to Mr. Clark’s

supplemental report or his testimony insofar as it relates to the

highest and best use of Kiva Dunes Golf Course. 

determining the after value of Kiva Dunes Golf Course, the

experts used very different methodologies. Mr. Paulk used an

income approach. He divided a capitalization rate into a number

that he represented was the 2002 net income of Kiva Dunes Golf

Course. Mr. Paulk determined the after value to be $8,808,000. 

In contrast, Mr. Clark concluded that the economic health of Kiva

Dunes Golf Course during 2002 was too poor to support an income

capitalization approach. Instead, he found sales of “comparable”

properties that he analyzed and adjusted to reach an after value

of $1,050,750. 

In determining his after value, Mr. Paulk divided a

capitalization rate (12 percent) into a number that he

erroneously represented was the 2002 net income of Kiva Dunes
- 22 -

30At trial, Mr. Edgmon testified that the 2002 net income

for Kiva Dunes Golf Course was a “negative number”. 

31D&E’s return was audited for taxable year 2002. The IRS

did not propose any adjustments to the expense categories on the

return or challenge whether any of the listed expenses were

ordinary or necessary. 

32We recognize, and both experts agree, that depreciation

does not figure into an appraisal value computation. However,

Mr. Paulk admitted that appraisal principles require that an

alternative, similar concept be substituted to reflect the

economic cost of maintaining and/or replacing equipment required

for the operation of the golf course. Examples of such items

relevant for such purposes would include, but are not limited to,

maintenance vehicles, maintenance equipment, irrigation systems,

and golf carts. In appraisal parlance, a “reserve” reflects this

anticipated cost of replacement and maintenance. Mr. Paulk made

no attempt to determine the amount of an appropriate reserve in

his after value analysis. On brief, respondent argues that an

appropriate reserve would not approximate D&E’s depreciation

deductions because D&E depreciated under an accelerated method

(i.e. double declining balance method) and claimed a special

depreciation allowance of 30 percent under sec. 168(k). We agree

with respondent that an appropriate reserve does not mirror the

claimed depreciation deductions in the instant case. However, it

is not necessary to determine an appropriate reserve as D&E’s

remaining expenses more than offset D&E’s 2002 income. 

Golf Course--$1,056,970.30 The error was that, in calculating

the 2002 net income, Mr. Paulk failed to account for all of the

expenses listed on D&E’s 2002 tax return,31 as well as reserves

in lieu of depreciation.32 The table below summarizes the

omitted categories of expense that, when subtracted from Mr.

Paulk’s computed 2002 net income, result in a negative number: 

Description Expense

 Salaries & wages $756,421

 Employee benefits 126,435

 Repairs/maintenance 64,037

 Taxes & licenses 28,565
- 23 -

 Rent 104,587

 Depreciation/“Reserve” 594,266

 Total 1,674,311

At trial, Mr. Paulk admitted that he was provided D&E’s 2002

tax return before he submitted his appraisal. We therefore place

no reliance on Mr. Paulk’s after value determination.

Mr. Clark used the comparable sales method to reach his

after value. The comparable sales method “is based upon the

commonsense approach of taking the actual sales prices of

properties similar to the subject property and then relating

these prices to the subject property.” Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co.

v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1, 19 (1979). The fair market value of

Kiva Dunes Golf Course is calculated by reference to the sale

prices of the comparable properties, adjusted upward to the

extent that the property is superior to the comparable property

in some fashion and downward to the extent it is inferior in some

fashion. See Whitehouse Hotel Ltd. Pship. v. Commissioner, 131

T.C. __, __ (2008) (slip op. at 45); see also Schwab v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-232 (“This approach is based on the

principle that the prudent purchaser would pay no more for a

property than the cost of acquiring an existing property with the

same utility.”). Mr. Clark made seven adjustments to the prices

of his comparables for differences in (1) market conditions, (2)

location value, (3) access and visibility, (4) size, (5)
- 24 -

33Mr. Clark testified that the limited use for which Kiva

Dunes Golf Course could be developed had a profound effect on his

adjustments to his comparables.

[T]his is an eased property that has just about 

all of its rights stripped from it except 

recreational type uses, and if this were an uneased 

property * * * there would be different adjustments, 

but an eased property under the conservation easement

* * * had very limited use. So whether you’ve got 

wetlands that you can’t do anything with or you’ve 

got an eased piece of property that you can’t do 

anything with, you can’t do anything with them. 

34All five of Mr. Clark’s sales of comparable properties

occurred in Baldwin County. 

availability of utilities, (6) topographical and wetland

characteristics, and (7) financing terms. 

Under ideal circumstances, there is an abundance of sales of

truly comparable properties made under similar conditions, only

minor adjustments are required, and the value is easily derived. 

However, as in the instant case, when such conditions do not

exist, many factors come into play and more adjustments are

required. As might be expected, the lack of sales of comparable

properties results in a more subjective value, highly dependent

on the independent judgment of the individual appraiser.33

In reaching his after value, Mr. Clark identified five sales

of properties he considered “comparable”.34 Mr. Clark’s first

comparable was a 186-acre vacant parcel of land in Gulf Shores,

Alabama. The property sold on June 4, 1992, for $5,136 per acre,

or $1 million. The land was purchased for the purpose of
- 25 -

developing Woodlands as a golf course. After adjusting the price

per acre for market conditions (+66 percent), location (-10

percent), access/visibility (-10 percent), size (-5 percent),

utilities (0 percent), topography/wetlands (+5 percent), and

financing (0 percent), Mr. Clark arrived at an adjusted value for

his first comparable of $7,140 per acre.

The second comparable was an 818-acre vacant parcel of land

also in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The property sold on October 12,

1994, for $6,432,500, or $7,860 per acre. The property has 1.2

miles of frontage on the south margin of Bon Secour Bay and

approximately 1.7 miles fronting on the north row of Highway 180. 

The land was purchased for the development of a residential

community, which included a golf course and tennis center. After

adjusting the price per acre for market conditions (+47),

location (-20 percent), access/visibility (-5 percent), size (+10

percent), utilities (-20 percent), topography/wetlands (-20

percent), and financing (0 percent), Mr. Clark arrived at an

adjusted value for his second comparable of $8,674 per acre.

The third comparable was a 320-acre vacant parcel of land in

Foley, Alabama. The property sold on January 16, 1997, for

$5,313 per acre, or $1,700,000. This comparable is in an area of

significant commercial development. After adjusting the price

per acre for market conditions (+29 percent), location (-10

percent), access/visibility (-10 percent), size (+5 percent),
- 26 -

utilities (-5 percent), topography/wetlands (+5 percent), and

financing (+10 percent), Mr. Clark arrived at an adjusted value

for his third comparable of $6,409 per acre.

Mr. Clark’s fourth comparable was a 190-acre parcel of land

in Foley, Alabama. The property was sold on November 19, 1997,

for $6,842 per acre, or $1,300,000. Mr. Clark testified that the

property was purchased by the Consumer Guaranty Corporation for

the purpose of developing a golf course. After adjusting the

price per acre for market conditions (+0 percent), location (+5

percent), access/visibility (-5 percent), size (-5 percent),

utilities (-20 percent), topography/wetlands (+5 percent), and

financing (0 percent), Mr. Clark arrived at an adjusted value for

his fourth comparable of $7,112 per acre.

The fifth comparable was a 254-acre parcel of land in Foley,

Alabama. The property sold on January 12, 2000, for $11,784 per

acre, or $3 million. The site was improved with a number of farm

buildings. Mr. Clark testified that the property was commonly

referred to as “one of the prettiest sites for a golf course that

there could be in Baldwin County.” After adjusting the price per

acre for market conditions (+5 percent), location (-5 percent),

access/visibility (-5 percent), size (0 percent), utilities (-20

percent), topography/wetlands (0 percent), and financing (0

percent), Mr. Clark arrived at an adjusted value for his fifth

comparable of $8,670 per acre.
- 27 -

35The average price per acre for the five comparable

properties is $7,601. Multiplying that number by the total

acreage of the easement, 140.9 acres, results in an after value

of $1,070,980, rounded. Mr. Clark inadvertently erred in two

respects in reaching his after value number--he miscalculated the

average price per acre of his five comparables at $7,500, and he

multiplied that number by 140.1 acres.

36For instance, the property could be operated as a golf

course, a park, or an agricultural enterprise.

On the basis of the average price of his five comparables,

adjusted for differences, Mr. Clark determined an after value of

$1,050,750.35

We are mindful of the fact that in reaching his after value,

Mr. Clark did not take into consideration the highest and best

use of his comparables in the traditional sense. He instead

selected properties that were purchased for recreational uses

that would be permitted on Kiva Dunes Golf Course.36 In other

words, Mr. Clark considered the market forces in Baldwin County

an accurate barometer of the highest and best use of a comparable

property. We do not find Mr. Clark’s analysis in that regard to

be “fatal”, as respondent contends.

We are satisfied that Mr. Clark’s selection of comparables

was reasonable under the circumstances and that his adjustments

to the prices of the comparables were based upon sound judgment

and a detailed knowledge of all the properties mentioned in his

report. However, we agree with respondent that an upward

adjustment to Mr. Clark’s after value is justified in one
- 28 -

respect. Mr. Clark’s comparables consist of unimproved land

while Kiva Dunes Golf Course’s current condition is that of an

award-winning golf course. Consequently, an upward adjustment to

the prices of the comparables for the cost of turning the

unimproved real estate into a comparable golf course property is

warranted. 

Petitioner contends on brief that the approximate costs of

the improvements are reflected in the basis of the golf course

real estate ($1,929,456) as reported on Schedule L, Balance Sheet

per Books, of Kiva Dunes’s 2002 Form 1065. The basis of the golf

course real estate improvements is actually $1,339,957. We

arrived at this figure by subtracting the portion of the cost

basis attributable to the golf course real estate ($589,499) from

the 2002 cost basis of Kiva Dunes Golf Course ($1,929,456). We

computed the proportional share of the golf course real estate

basis by dividing the total acreage for Kiva Dunes Golf Course

(140.9) by the total acreage for the RTC property (251) and

multiplying that fraction by the total purchase price for the RTC

property ($1,050,000). 

The foregoing improvement costs ($1,339,957) must be

adjusted to account for depreciation. See Wortmann v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-227. On Schedule L of its 2000

Form 1065, D&E reported a cost basis in Kiva Dunes Golf Course of

$2,501,499. D&E depreciated the costs of improvements on Kiva
- 29 -

37D&E did not depreciate the costs of improvements in 2000,

and there is no evidence in the record before us that D&E

depreciated any costs of improvements to the subject property

before 2000.

Dunes Golf Course for taxable years 2001 ($347,876) and 2002

($224,168), and its cost basis was correspondingly reduced to

$1,929,456 to reflect the deductions.37 We therefore add to

petitioner’s cost of improvements ($1,339,957) the depreciation

deductions D&E claimed for taxable years 2001 and 2002 to derive

a value for the costs of improvements on Kiva Dunes Golf Course

($1,339,957 + $347,876 + $224,168 = $1,912,001). 

Accordingly, after adjusting Mr. Clark’s after value to

account for the improvements, we conclude that the after value

for Kiva Dunes Golf Course is $2,982,981 ($1,070,980 comparable

value + $1,912,001 depreciation adjustment). 

Enhancement

Mr. Clark determined that the conservation easement enhanced

property owned by D&E north of Highway 180 by $300,000.

Respondent agrees. We shall adjust our final value to reflect

that enhancement. 

Conclusion

On the basis of our review of all the valuation evidence,

giving due consideration to our observation at trial of the

witnesses for both parties and to the testimony of the experts
- 30 -

38We reached this number by subtracting our after value

($2,982,981) as well as enhancement ($300,000) from our before

value ($31,938,985).

39Respondent argues that Kiva Dunes is liable for either a

substantial or a gross valuation penalty pursuant to sec.

6662(b)(3) and (e) or (h). Sec. 6662(a) and (b)(3) imposes a

20-percent penalty on that portion of an underpayment which

results from a substantial valuation misstatement. There is a

substantial valuation misstatement if the value of any property

claimed on the return is 200 percent or more of the amount

determined to be the correct amount. Sec. 6662(e)(1)(A). Sec.

6662(h) increases the penalty to 40 percent in the case of a

gross valuation misstatement. There is a gross valuation

misstatement if the value is 400 percent or more of the value

determined to be the correct amount. Sec. 6662(h)(2)(A)(i).

We corrected Kiva Dunes’s reported value approximately 10

percent. Accordingly, Kiva Dunes is not subject to a valuation

penalty. 

and their reports, we conclude that the fair market value of the

easement is $28,656,004.38

We have considered all of the parties’ contentions and

arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them

unnecessary to reach, without merit, or irrelevant.39

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.