Land Trusts Attempt Stealth Tax Cut

American Land Rights Association ^ | Monday, February 17, 2003 9:59 PM | American Land Rights Association

[countrydummy]

Land Trusts Attempt Stealth Tax Cut

TAX FAVORITISM for the Nature Conservancy approved by Senate Committee!!

Democratic Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Republican Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) propose huge new benefit for the Nature Conservancy and other land trusts - at the expense of private property owners, communities and other charities.

S.256, Sections 106 and 107!

*** ALERT *** TERRIBLE LEGISLATION *** TAX FAVORITISM for the Nature Conservancy and other land trusts!!!

Here is the FIRST bill out of the chute that is moving in Congress that impacts private property rights. It has ALREADY been approved by the Senate Finance Committee, on Feb. 5! It is a 25% tax cut on capital gains of land sales - but only if the land is sold to an environmental group or to a government agency!

Private parties, or non-environmentalist charities such as churches and orphanages are left in the dust - they can take a hike!

This would hand over to the Nature Conservancy and other already wealthy land trusts a nearly insurmountable advantage of up to 25% when competing with private purchasers for property. It would be devastating to family businesses attempting to keep property in private hands through sale to relatives.

It will take more land off the tax rolls, damaging the tax base of rural communities in public lands dominated regions of the country. And this proposed tax advantage does not apply to churches, orphanages or other non-profit charities when purchasing land! ONLY land trusts and government agencies!!!

WORST OF ALL - even though it is technically a tax break for the SELLER of the land, all it will benefit is the BUYER, if the buyer is a land trust!

HERE is why: the land trusts can and will reduce their offers for land purchase. They will have up to a 25% advantage when bidding versus private parties, because of the tax benefit to the seller. So the seller will get a smaller sale price, reducing his tax benefit, while the land trust spends less money.

AND S.256 effectively locks out private buyers, eliminating competition which might otherwise drive the price of the land up. Federal agencies and the land trusts, often working together, will have a huge advantage without any competition to remotely keep them honest.

PLUS, that is assuming that there is even a private bidder, once the Big Green Machine has worked over the landowner with threats of increased regulation and strong arm tactics from the Federal land buying agencies, the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

HERE IT IS: Incredibly, this is part of the Faith-Based Initiative legislation heading through Congress. So a bill designed to help charities to help people has quietly had this provision tacked onto it by multibillion dollar land trusts for their own selfish benefit!

OF COURSE, this has been done with NO PUBLIC HEARINGS. The land trusts prefer to work in the dark, behind closed doors.

ACTION ITEM - SHINE THE LIGHT on this attack on private property rights, and this hijacking of the Faith Based Initiative.

S.256, Sections 106 and 107 - "The CARE Act of 2003" - while the entire bill deals with a variety of tax deductions, it is Sections 106 and 107 of S.256 which has the free hand out for the Nature Conservancy.

TELL your Senator and Congressmen to take out Sections 106 and 107 from S.256!!! Defend private property rights - land trusts should not get special tax breaks that churches and orphanages do not get in the "Faith Based Initiative" !!!

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO NOW!!!

-----1. Call both your Senators and your Congressman. You may call any Senator or Representative at the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. YOU CAN USE TWO TEMPORARY TOLL FREE NUMBERS. THEY ARE:

(800) 648-3516 or (877) 762-8762. When the switchboard answers, ask for your Senators office. Then ask for the staff person who covers S.256, tax issues or natural resource issues . . . or each of them.

-----2. Send a fax objecting to this special secret deal to both your Senators plus your Representative. If you do not have their fax number, call the toll free number above to get it from your Senator or Representative.

-----3. Send a letter to them at the following addresses:

Honorable US Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Honorable US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 10515

----4. Tell your local newspaper about this special interest secret attack on private property.

Please forward this message as widely as possible.

[countrydummy]

Again been awhile since I posted, but I am back and ready to rock and roll, I pray all of you will do what this email alert message requests!

[countrydummy]

ping

[HairOfTheDog]

I would rather see the full text. A tax break for private sellers who sell their land for conservation to land trusts does not strike me as wrong yet, but then I am a bit of a square peg here on conservation issues.

Don't flame me if you want me to buy into this. Anyone who wants to explain why land trusts are inherently bad, or why their shouldn't be a tax break for leaving lands undeveloped, I would love to listen.

[HairOfTheDog]

er... rather, tell me why *there* shouldn't be a tax break for leaving lands undeveloped...

[Mamzelle]

I don't really understand your vehement objection to this. Given that purchasers of land trusts cannot develop or use the land (except, perhaps, for some grazing/recreation or other limited uses), a 25% "discount" would not be all that much of an incentive to take land out of development. Not all land trusts become people-unfriendly, after all. Some are hunting and fishing preserves. As for private property owners, they are also not all that averse to having a land trust in their neighborhoods.

They're kind of a tax-avoidance gimmick, sometimes designed to keep a ranch or farm in the family without having to liquidate it for estate taxes, but not this terrible pernicious threat you describe.

[Ramius]

So what is so wrong with land trusts? Seems to me that they are doing it the right way: If you want to control what happens to a piece of land, *buy it*. A tax break (rarely ever a bad idea) makes it easier for them. So what?

Your comments seem to say that some family will somehow be *forced* to sell to these trusts instead of a family member. Not quite so... the seller can sell to whomever they wish, can they not?

[Ramius]

Don't churches, orphanages, and nonprofits already get a property tax break?

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Who's side are you on?

[Mamzelle]

re: Your comments seem to say that some family will somehow be *forced* to sell to these trusts instead of a family member. Not quite so... the seller can sell to whomever they wish, can they not?)))

Maybe he's suggesting that a private purchaser would be outbid because of a tax advantage that the land-trust has. But someone putting land into a trust already suffers the loss of much of its possible use in development, so it's not that much of an advantage.

Frankly, there's a lot that's voluntary about the landtrusts that make it more appealing than the standard condemn-and-seize eminent domain operations. At least there's some private control, and sometimes the land becomes available for recreational use, improving the values of private pty nearby.

Watched a waterfall area in NC go through some scary weirdness. First the state didn't bid enough on the property, then tried to seize the property later from the owner without paying him FMV for it. The owner had already deeded much of the scenic part of the land for **public** enjoyment, a gift! Didn't keep up with what eventually happened...

[HairOfTheDog]

All very good questions, and I appreciate not being the only one asking them!

[B Knotts]

Simple. The government already owns way too much land, and these land trusts are merely a vehicle for the government to acquire even more land.

They should be selling off land to lower the deficit, not accumulating more.

[freeper12]

Also keep in mind that in many communities, it is actually better from a local-tax perspective to loose the land to a non-prfit, than to have a row of houses put in that need to be added to the sewer, and in general, if a new house has the "average" number of kids (i.e. about 2.5), they in general cost more to have from a school perspective, than the owners pay in property taxes.

In my town, the less houses the better and if some rich person wants to sell or donate his/her development rights away to a NON-GOVERNMENTAL agency, I am all for it. I don't think the govt should be in the business of buying up land though...but thats just me.

[HairOfTheDog]

OK so you see issues that are really different than a tax break. Lets tackle the "land trusts are merely a vehicle for the government to acquire even more land". I live in the west too, where there are huge blocks of public land, mostly in the mountains and rural areas where it is owned out of default by the government, but some also no doubt purchased.

Define "way too much land". I don't automatically see "too much". I am a big user of public land. The trails I ride in are all public lands. People hunt, hike and camp in public lands. The private forests here are closed to me. That is their right, but that makes me appreciate lands set aside for public enjoyment as well as natural benefits. I don't see it as intrinsically wrong.

[HairOfTheDog]

They should be selling off land to lower the deficit, not accumulating more.

And that is a short term solution to a long term problem of budget. Hocking your TV set to pay the rent might save you this month.... but not next month, when you have both nothing left to watch, and nothing left to sell.

[Teacher317]

A problem arises as the government buys more and more land (with our money), making less and less land available to an ever-expanding population. The government, predictably, responds with legislation (against 'sprawl', restrictive zoning, etc) that makes America more urban than rural, at an ever-increasing rate... and urban areas are not exactly known as bastions of freedom (gotta restrict that freedom "for the good of the community" you see).

[B Knotts]

When the federal government owns 70-90% of many western states, yes, I'd say that's too much. Especially considering they don't really have any constitutional authority to permanently own any land, aside from government buildings.

[B Knotts]

Exactly right. We get further away from Jefferson's ideal every day.

[B Knotts]

People hunt, hike and camp in public lands

Believe me, I know that. I see the garbage and dog feces they leave behind near the public lands.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, if we are to have ever increasing population, I for one am happy to set some places aside now. Unbridled sprawl is not the country I want to live in.

[Ben Ficklin]

There are two things missing from this article:

First, the tax reduction also applies to water rights.

Second, it is not limited to land trusts but also to: "a governmental unit, or an agency or a department thereof".

Source

[B Knotts]

If you want to eliminate "sprawl" (whatever that is), there's a simple way to do it: limit immigration. Otherwise, people gotta live somewhere, and crowding people too close together results in a number of pathologies.