Partnership Challenges Denial of Charitable Contribution Deduction

a. Respondent erred in asserting any adjustment for any amount;

b. Respondent erred in asserting an adjustment to “the charitable contribution claimed on” the 2016 Form 1065 of $24,329,000;

c. Respondent erred by failing to describe any specific factual, tax or legal grounds for disallowing Bear Creek's charitable contribution deduction;

d. Respondent erred by asserting that Bear Creek did not establish that it made a non-cash charitable contribution during 2016;

e. Respondent erred by asserting that Bear Creek did not establish that it satisfied all the requirements of Section 170 and the corresponding regulations;

f. Respondent erred by asserting that Bear Creek did not establish the value of the non-cash charitable contribution;

g. Respondent erred in asserting penalties based, alternatively, on gross valuation misstatement pursuant to Section 6662(h), a reportable transaction understatement pursuant to Section 6662A, negligence or disregard of rules and regulations pursuant to Section 6662(c), substantial understatement of income tax pursuant to Section 6662(d), or substantial valuation misstatement pursuant to Section 6662(e); and

h. Respondent erred in asserting that Bear Creek and its partners failed to exercise reasonable cause or establish other defenses to the alleged penalties.

a. Bear Creek was a partnership for federal tax purposes in 2016.

b. Petitioner owned 96 percent of the profit, loss, and capital of Bear Creek on December 31, 2016.

c. On December 31, 2016, Petitioner was the general partner of Bear Creek for purposes of Section 6231(a)(7) because it was a member-manager of Bear Creek.

d. Bear Creek designated Petitioner as TMP on its 2016 Form 1065.

e. Bear Creek's designation of Petitioner as TMP complies with the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations.

f. Bear Creek meets the net worth criteria described in Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii).

g. As of December 30, 2016, Bear Creek owned 185.298 acres in Coweta County, Georgia (“Property”).

h. The Property is approximately 35 miles from Atlanta, Georgia.

i. The Property is viewable from Bear Creek Road.

j. Harold Barry and Linda Barry acquired the Property in multiple transactions.

k. Harold Barry, individually, acquired approximately 62.88 acres of the Property (“Tract 1”) in November 1981 in connection with the purchase of a larger tract of real property.

l. Harold Barry, individually, transferred Tract 1 to Linda Barry, individually, on July 22,1987.

m. Harold Barry and Linda Barry, jointly, acquired the remaining approximately 122.42 acres of the Property (“Tract 2”) on August 4, 2006.

n. Bear Creek acquired legal title to Tract 1 and Tract 2 of the Property via Limited Warranty Deeds executed by Linda Barry, individually, and by Harold Barry and Linda Barry, jointly (“Limited Warranty Deeds”).

o. The Limited Warranty Deeds were executed on December 22, 2016.

p. The Limited Warranty Deeds were recorded on December 28, 2016.

q. The Property is located in an area with significant mineral resources, including minerals used as construction aggregates.

r. The Zebulon Formation underlies the Property.

s. The Zebulon Formation is a geologic formation within the Zebulon Thrust Sheet.

t. Zebulon Thrust Sheet consists of a wide variety of biotiteplagioclase gneisses and minor granitic gneisses, which are common aggregate sources in the Atlanta metro area.

u. In 2016, multiple quarries for construction aggregates operated within 30 miles of the Property.

v. Bear Creek hired a land surveyor licensed in Georgia to prepare a survey of the Property (“Survey”).

w. Bear Creek hired a geology company to (i) conduct a borehole drilling program, (ii) evaluate the mineral reserves of a tract of real property that included the Property, and (iii) prepare a report titled “Preliminary Gneiss Valuation and Quarry Feasibility Analysis at the Bear Creek Farm Greenfield Site Moreland, Coweta County, Georgia” (“Mineral Assessment”).

x. The Mineral Assessment relies on 22 drill holes.

y. The drill holes consisted of two Core Holes, 12 air rotary Boreholes, and eight Overburden Borings.

z. Eleven of the drill holes were located on the Property, including one Core Hole, five Boreholes, and five Overburden Borings.

aa. Based on the drill holes, the Mineral Assessment concluded that there are over 260 feet of granitic gneiss reserves beneath the Property.

ab. Bowser-Momer, Inc., an accredited construction materials testing laboratory (“Bowser-Momer”), tested the core samples from the Property (“Core Assessment”).

ac. Bowser-Momer, Inc. prepared the laboratory report attached to the Mineral Assessment that concluded that the Property's granitic gneiss resource could be processed to meet the constmction aggregate specifications of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

ad. The Mineral Assessment concluded that approximately 14.609 million tons of granitic gneiss reserve was located under the Property.

ae. On December 30, 2016, Bear Creek granted a Deed of Conservation Easement (“Deed”) encumbering the Property in favor of the Atlantic Coast Conservancy, Inc. (“ACC”).

af. The Deed covered the entire 185.298 acres of the Property (“Conservation Easement”).

ag. ACC was a “qualified organization” for purposes of Section 170 and the underlying regulations as of December 30,2016.

ah. ACC was an “eligible donee” for purposes of Section 170 and the underlying regulations as of December 30, 2016.

ai. The Property was not encumbered by a mortgage as of December 30,2016.

aj. The Conservation Easement constituted a “qualified real property interest” for purposes of Section 170 and the underlying regulations.

ak. Except as provided in the Deed, Bear Creek did not restrict ACC's right to use or dispose of the Conservation Easement.

al. Bear Creek did not reserve to anyone any right to income from the Conservation Easement, or to the possession of the Conservation Easement, or to designate the person having such income or possession.

am. Bear Creek did not earmark or otherwise identify the Conservation Easement for a particular use.

an. Bear Creek did not contribute the Conservation Easement to ACC in a bargain sale.

ao. Bear Creek did not receive any consideration from ACC in exchange for the contribution of the Conservation Easement.

ap. Bear Creek did not receive any consideration from any other party in exchange for the contribution of the Conservation Easement to ACC.

aq. The Coweta County Clerk of Superior Court recorded the Deed on December 30, 2016.

ar. The Deed incorporates the Baseline Documentation Report dated December 30, 2016 (“Baseline Report”).

as. The Deed identifies various conservation purposes.

at. The Deed indicates that the Conservation Easement will protect a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, plants, or similar ecosystems.

au. The Deed indicates that the Conservation Easement will preserve open space (including farmland and forestland) pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state, or local governmental policy, and will yield a significant public benefit.

av. The Deed indicates that the Conservation Easement will preserve open space (including farmland and forestland) for the scenic enjoyment of the general public and will yield a significant public benefit.

aw. The Deed protects the Property as a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, plants, or similar ecosystem, which qualifies as a conservation purpose as defined by Section 170(h)(4)(A)(ii).

ax. The Deed protects the Property as an open space (including farmland and forestland), where such preservation is for the scenic enjoyment of the general public, which qualifies as a conservation purpose as defined by Section 170(h)(4)(A)(iii)(I).

ay. The Deed protects the Property as an open space (including farmland and forestland), where such preservation is pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state, or local governmental policy, and will yield a significant public benefit, which qualifies as a conservation purpose as defined by Section 170(h)(4)(A)(iii)(n).

az. The Deed describes the purpose of the Conservation Easement as protecting the conservation values of the Property in perpetuity and ensuring that the Property will remain forever predominantly in its natural condition, and preventing any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Property.

ba. The Deed identifies the specific conservation values of the Property.

bb. The Baseline Report documents the specific conservation values of the Property.

bc. The Deed granted ACC the right to preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property in perpetuity.

bd. The Deed imposed on ACC the duty to preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property in perpetuity.

be. The Deed granted ACC the right to enter the Property at reasonable times, to inspect the Property, to monitor compliance with the Deed, and to enforce the purposes of the Conservation Easement.

bf. The Deed prohibits Bear Creek and all future owners from exploring for or extracting minerals, oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons, soils, sands, gravel, rock, or other materials on or below the surface of the Property.

bg. The Deed prohibits Bear Creek and all future owners of the Property from constructing improvements on the Property outside of specific areas defined by reference to the Baseline Report.

bh. No provision of the Deed permits the specific areas defined in the Baseline Report for the construction of improvements to be moved, enlarged, or otherwise modified.

bi. The restrictions on the use of the Property stated in the Deed are binding on Bear Creek and all future owners of the Property in perpetuity.

bj. The Deed granted ACC an immediately vested right to a proportionate share of any proceeds that may result from a sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of the Property, if the Conservation Easement is extinguished in future legal proceedings.

bk. The Deed provides a formula for calculating ACC's proportionate share of extinguishment proceeds that complies with the requirements of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii).

bl. A biologist prepared the Baseline Report.

bm. The Baseline Report was completed before Bear Creek donated the Conservation Easement to ACC.

bn. The Baseline Report documented the conservation values on the Property, as well as the physical condition of the Property, at the time of the donation of the Conservation Easement.

bo. The Baseline Report concluded that the Property possessed significant recreational, educational, scenic, natural, aesthetic, watershed, wildlife, forest, agricultural, open space, and plant habitat features.

bp. The Baseline Report concluded that the Property was composed of agricultural fields, a mature planted loblolly pine forest, a fourth-order freshwater stream, a first-order freshwater stream with associated wetlands and riparian areas, and forested depressional wetlands with a high-priority bottomland hardwood forest.

bq. The Baseline Report contains numerous maps covering the Property, including U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, and aerial photographs.

br. The Baseline Report contains photographs taken at various locations on the Property.

bs. Two appraisers licensed in the state of Georgia (“Appraisers”) prepared the “Qualified Appraisal Report Conservation Easement of 185.298 Acres N/S Bear Creek Road, Moreland, Coweta County, Georgia 30259” (“Easement Appraisal”).

bt. The Appraisers were not direct partners of Bear Creek in 2016.

bu. The Appraisers were not indirect partners of Bear Creek in 2016.

bv. The Appraisers did not claim, report, or otherwise take a deduction under Section 170 or any other tax provision for the donation of the Conservation Easement.

bw. The Appraisers were not parties to the transaction in which Bear Creek acquired the Property.

bx. The Appraisers were not the donee of the Conservation Easement.

by. The Appraisers were not employees of (i) Bear Creek, (ii) a direct partner of Bear Creek, (iii) an indirect partner of Bear Creek, (iv) a party to the transaction in which Bear Creek acquired the Property, (v) ACC, or (vi) Petitioner.

bz. The Appraisers were not “related” under Section 267(b) to any of the persons described immediately above.

ca. The Appraisers performed a majority of their appraisals in 2016 for parties other than Bear Creek.

cb. Each of the Appraisers was a “qualified appraiser,” as that term is defined under Section 170 and the underlying regulations.

cc. Bear Creek provided the Appraisers with significant due diligence materials regarding the Property, including copies of the Survey and Mineral Assessment.

cd. Each of the Appraisers has local knowledge and experience in preparing appraisals related to conservation easements.

ce. The Easement Appraisal was dated September 9,2017.

cf. The Easement Appraisal was dated before the extended deadline for Bear Creek to file its 2016 Form 1065.

eg. The Appraisers signed and dated the Easement Appraisal.

ch. The Easement Appraisal contains a detailed legal description of the Property and includes a copy of the Deed.

ci. The Easement Appraisal contains a description of the Property and the Conservation Easement.

cj. The Easement Appraisal contains a description of the physical condition of the Property.

ck. The Easement Appraisal states that Bear Creek donated the Conservation Easement to ACC on December 30,2016.

cl. The Easement Appraisal contains the name, address, appraiser certification license number, and partial social security number of both Appraisers.

cm. The Easement Appraisal contains the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the appraisal company.

cn. The Easement Appraisal contains a list of the qualifications of each of the Appraisers, including his background, experience, education, and membership in professional associations.

co. The Easement Appraisal contains a statement that it was being prepared for income tax purposes.

cp. The Easement Appraisal provides the basis for the conclusions by the Appraisers regarding the fair market value (“FMV”) of the Conservation Easement.

cq. The Easement Appraisal states that the FMV of the Property was based on market conditions as of December 30,2016.

cr. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the FMV of the Property, before Bear Creek donated the Conservation Easement, was $24,700,000.

cs. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the FMV of the Property, after Bear Creek donated the Conservation Easement, was $371,000.

ct. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the FMV of the Conservation Easement was $24,329,000.

cu. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the Conservation Easement did not enhance the value of any other property owned by Bear Creek.

cv. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the FMV of the Conservation Easement, taking into account the enhancement or lack of enhancement to any other property owned by Bear Creek, was $24,329,000.

cw. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the highest and best use (“HBU”) for the Property, before the donation of the Conservation Easement, was the operation of a quarry for aggregate extraction (“Before-Donation-HBU”).

cx. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the Before-Donation-HBU was legally permissible.

cy. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the Before-Donation-HBU was physically possible.

cz. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the Before-Donation-HBU was financially feasible.

da. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the Before-Donation-HBU was maximally productive.

db. In determining the FMV of the Property before the donation of the Conservation Easement, as stated in the Easement Appraisal, the Appraisers used the income capitalization approach.

dc. In determining the FMV of the Property before the donation of the Conservation Easement, as stated in the Easement Appraisal, the Appraisers determined that using a sales comparison approach was not appropriate due to the differences between mineral properties.

dd. In determining the FMV of the Property before the donation of the Conservation Easement under the income method, the Appraisers utilized a discounted cash flow (“DCF”) analysis.

de. The DCF analysis has been recognized as appropriate under the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions in situations in which mineral interests are being acquired.

df. Respondent has advocated the use of the DCF method for valuing mineral properties in litigation before the Tax Court.

dg. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the HBU of the Property, after the donation of the Conservation Easement, was agriculture and passive recreation (“After-Donation-HBU”).

dh. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the After-Donation-HBU was legally permissible.

di. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the After-Donation-HBU was physically possible.

dj. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the After-Donation-HBU was financially feasible.

dk. The Easement Appraisal concludes that the After-Donation-HBU was maximally productive.

dl. In determining the FMV of the Property after the donation of the Conservation Easement, the Appraisers used the sales comparison approach.

dm. In determining the FMV of the Property after the donation of the Conservation Easement under the sales comparison approach, the Appraisers analyzed nine sales of comparable properties encumbered by conservation easements.

dn. The appraisal fee charged by the Appraisers for the preparation of the Easement Appraisal was not based on a percentage of the appraised value of the Conservation Easement.

do. The appraisal fee charged by the Appraisers for the preparation of the Easement Appraisal was not based on a percentage of the amount allowable as a charitable contribution deduction under Section 170.

dp. The Easement Appraisal was a “qualified appraisal,” as that term is defined in Section 170 and the underlying regulations.

dq. ACC issued a letter to Bear Creek dated December 30, 2016, acknowledging receipt of the donation of the Conservation Easement (“Easement Acknowledgment Letter”).

dr. ACC issued two letters to Bear Creek dated January 26, 2017, acknowledging receipt of cash contributions totaling $54,466.05 (“Cash Acknowledgement Letters”).

ds. The Easement Acknowledgement Letter and the Cash Acknowledgement Letters confirm that ACC did not provide any goods or services in exchange for the donation of the Conservation Easement or the stewardship/endowment funds.

dt. The Easement Acknowledgement Letter constitutes a “contemporaneous written acknowledgement” for purposes of Section 170 and the underlying regulations.

du. Each Cash Acknowledgement Letter constitutes a “contemporaneous written acknowledgement” for purposes of Section 170 and the underlying regulations.

dv. Bear Creek timely filed its 2016 Form 1065.

dw. The 2016 Form 1065 reports, among other items, the donation of the Conservation Easement to ACC.

dx. Schedules K (Partner's Distributive Share Items) to the 2016 Form 1065 show, among other items, charitable contributions of $24,383,466 related to the donation of the Conservation Easement and stewardship/endowment funds to ACC.

dy. The Statement to the 2016 Form 1065 indicates that the charitable contribution deduction of $24,383,466 was comprised of (i) a non-cash charitable contribution of $24,329,000 (i.e., the Conservation Easement to ACC), and (ii) cash contributions totaling $54,466 (i.e., the stewardship/endowment funds to ACC).

dz. Bear Creek attached the Easement Appraisal to its timely 2016 Form 1065.

ea. Bear Creek attached to its 2016 Form 1065 a Form 8283 (Noncash Charitable Contributions).

eb. Bear Creek attached a document titled “Supplemental Attachment to Form 8283: Non-Cash Charitable Contributions” (“Supporting Documentation”) immediately after Form 8283.

ec. Form 8283 and the Supporting Documentation contain all the information required by Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(c)(4) with respect to the donation of the Conservation Easement.

ed. Form 8283 indicates that Bear Creek made a qualified conservation contribution with a value of $24,329,000 to ACC.

ee. Form 8283 reports the adjusted basis of Bear Creek in the Property.

ef. Form 8283 reports the manner by which Bear Creek obtained the Property.

eg. Form 8283 reports the date on which Bear Creek obtained the Property.

eh. The Chief Executive Officer of ACC signed and dated Form 8283.

ei. The Appraisers signed and dated Form 8283.

ej. Form 8283 contains the name and taxpayer identification number of Bear Creek.

ek. Form 8283 contains the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of ACC.

el. Form 8283 identifies the date on which ACC received the donation of the Conservation Easement as December 30, 2016.

em. Form 8283 contains the names of each of the Appraisers, and the name, address, and tax identification number of the appraisal company.

en. Form 8283 contains a certification by the Appraisers stating that (i) each performed appraisals on a regular basis, (ii) each was qualified to make appraisals of the type of property being valued, (iii) the fee charged for the appraisal was not based on a percentage of the appraised property value, (iv) each was not one of the persons described in Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(c)(5)(iv), (v) each understood that an intentionally false or fraudulent overstatement of the value of the property may subject him to a civil penalty under Section 6701, and (vi) each was not barred from presenting evidence or testimony by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

eo. The statements by the Appraisers in Form 8283 described immediately above were accurate.

ep. The Supporting Documentation attached to Form 8283 contains a detailed legal description of the Property and the Conservation Easement.

eq. The Supporting Documentation attached to Form 8283 contains a summary of the physical condition of the Property at the time of the donation through incorporation of the Baseline Report.

er. The Supporting Documentation attached to Form 8283 contains a description of the manner by which and the date on which Bear Creek obtained the Property.

es. Bear Creek maintained all records required with respect to the 2016 Form 1065.

et. Bear Creek cooperated with Respondent during the audit.

eu. Bear Creek cooperated with all requests by Respondent for information, documents, meetings, site visits, and interviews during the audit.

ev. Bear Creek timely responded to each Information Document Request that Respondent issued to Bear Creek during the audit.

ew. Respondent never issued a Summons to Bear Creek during the audit.

ex. Respondent never issued a Formal Document Request to Bear Creek during the audit.

ey. Representatives of Bear Creek provided a tour of the Property to Respondent during the audit.

ez. Bear Creek properly reported cash charitable contributions of $54,466 on its 2016 Form 1065.

fa. The FPAA allows a charitable contribution of $54,466.

fb. Bear Creek properly reported a non-cash charitable contribution of $24,329,000 on its 2016 Form 1065.

fc. The FPAA asserts an adjustment for “charitable contributions” {i.e., donation of the Conservation Easement) of $24,329,000.

fd. The FPAA describes the basis for asserting the $24,329,000 adjustment as “[i]t has not been established that the claimed deduction meets all of the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 170.”

fe. The FPAA further describes the basis for asserting the $24,329,000 adjustment as “[y]ou have not established that [Bear Creek] made a noncash charitable contribution during the tax year ended December 31,2016;”

ff. The FPAA describes an alternative basis for asserting the $24,329,000 adjustment as “you failed to establish that [Bear Creek] satisfied all the requirements of [Section] 170 and the corresponding Treasury Regulation;”

fg. The FPAA describes an alternative basis for asserting the $24,329,000 adjustment as “you have not established the value of the noncash charitable contribution;”

fh. The FPAA does not describe any specific facts, legal theories, tax theories, or analysis for asserting the adjustment of $24,329,000 to the 2016 Form 1065.

fi. The FPAA does not describe any specific facts, legal theories, tax theories, or analysis for possible defenses and/or exceptions to penalties asserted.

fj. The Explanation of Adjustments attached to the FPAA consists of just one page.

fk. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Conservation Easement does not constitute a “qualified real property interest” for purposes of Section 170.

fl. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that ACC was not a “qualified organization” for purposes of Section 170.

fm. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that ACC was not an “eligible donee” for purposes of Section 170.

fn. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Conservation Easement fails to meet any one of the “conservation purpose” requirements of Section 170(h)(4)(A).

fo. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the restrictions found in the Deed are not enforceable and/or not binding on current and future owners of the Property in perpetuity.

fp. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the conservation purposes of the Conservation Easement are not protected in perpetuity.

fq. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Baseline Report fails to adequately document the physical condition of the Property at the time of the donation of the Conservation Easement.

fr. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Easement Appraisal was not a “qualified appraisal.”

fs. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that either of the Appraisers was not a “qualified appraiser.”

ft. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Appraisers failed to use acceptable appraisal standards or methods in preparing the Easement Appraisal.

fu. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Form 8283 was late, incomplete, or inaccurate.

fv. The FPAA does not describe as a basis for the adjustment of $24,329,000 that the Supporting Documentation to the Form 8283 was late, incomplete, or inaccurate.

fw. The FPAA does not propose any federal income tax adjustment to the 2016 Form 1065 filed by Bear Creek, other than disallowance of the non-cash charitable contribution deduction related to the Conservation Easement.

fx. The FPAA does not propose any adjustment to the basis in the Property reported by Bear Creek in the 2016 Form 1065.

fy. The FPAA does not propose to change any method of accounting utilized by Bear Creek and reflected in the 2016 Form 1065.

fz. The penalties asserted in the FPAA were not timely and personally approved in writing by the immediate supervisor of the individual who made the initial determination to propose such penalties pursuant to Section 6751(b).

ga. Respondent never hired or utilized during the audit an independent biologist, forester, environmental scientist, zoologist, hydrologist, or other type of conservation expert to determine whether the Conservation Easement donation satisfied the “conservation purpose” requirements of Section 170(h)(4)(A).

gb. Respondent never hired or utilized during the audit an independent mining expert to determine the extent of the mineral reserves underlying the Property.

gc. Respondent only relied on his own employees in making the determinations set forth in the FPAA.

gd. Bear Creek fully complied with Section 170 and the underlying regulations with respect to the donation of the Conservation Easement.

ge. Bear Creek substantially complied with Section 170 and the underlying regulations with respect to the donation of the Conservation Easement.

gf. In claiming the charitable deductions related to the donation of the Conservation Easement on its 2016 Form 1065, Bear Creek relied on the Mineral Assessment, Survey, Baseline Report, Easement Appraisal, and Deed.

gg. Bear Creek reasonably relied on the Mineral Assessment, Survey, Baseline Report, Easement Appraisal, and Deed.

gh. Bear Creek reasonably relied on the qualified, independent, informed professionals who prepared the Mineral Assessment, Survey, Baseline Report, Easement Appraisal, and Deed.

(i) Determine that the 2016 Form 1065 is accurate as filed;

(ii) Determine that there are no adjustments, penalties, additions to tax, or other amounts with respect to the 2016 Form 1065;

(iii) If warranted by the facts presented at trial, determine that Bear Creek undervalued the Conservation Easement and increase the amount of the non-cash charitable donation deduction for 2016 accordingly;

(iv) Determine that Respondent has the burden of proof as to all issues; and

(v) Grant such other and further relief that it deems appropriate.