[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

SEC. 106. MODIFICATIONS TO ENCOURAGE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN REAL PROPERTY MADE FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 170(h) (relating to qualified conservation contribution) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(7) ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of any qualified conservation contribution (as defined in paragraph (1)) made by an individual--

`(i) subparagraph (C) of subsection (b)(1) shall not apply,

`(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B)(i), subsections (b)(1)(A) and (d)(1) shall be applied separately with respect to such contributions by treating references to 50 percent of the taxpayer's contribution base as references to the amount of such base reduced by the amount of other contributions allowable under subsection (b)(1)(A), and

`(iii) subparagraph (A) of subsection (d)(1) shall be applied--

`(I) by substituting `15 succeeding taxable years' for `5 succeeding taxable years', and

`(II) by applying clause (ii) to each of the 15 succeeding taxable years.

`(B) SPECIAL RULES FOR ELIGIBLE FARMERS AND RANCHERS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of any such contributions made by an eligible farmer or rancher--

`(I) if the taxpayer is an individual, subsections (b)(1)(A) and (d)(1) shall be applied separately with respect to such contributions by substituting `the taxpayer's contribution base reduced by the amount of other contributions allowable under subsection (b)(1)(A)' for `50 percent of the taxpayer's contribution base' each place it appears, and

`(II) if the taxpayer is a corporation, subsections (b)(2) and (d)(2) shall be applied separately with respect to such contributions, subsection (b)(2) shall be applied with respect to such contributions as if such subsection did not contain the words `10 percent of' and as if subparagraph (A) thereof read `the deduction under this section for qualified conservation contributions', and rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A)(iii) shall apply for purposes of subsection (d)(2).

`(ii) DEFINITION- For purposes of clause (i), the term `eligible farmer or rancher' means a taxpayer whose gross income from the trade or business of farming (within the meaning of section 2032A(e)(5)) is at least 51 percent of the taxpayer's gross income for the taxable year, and, in the case of a C corporation, the stock of which is not publicly traded on a recognized exchange.'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by this section shall apply to contributions made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 107. EXCLUSION OF 25 PERCENT OF GAIN ON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF LAND OR WATER INTERESTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 (relating to items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by inserting after section 121 the following new section:

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

The truth is The Nature Conservancy is little more than a massive, ruthless real estate machine using its tax-exempt status and ties to the government to create wealth for itself.
===========================

Guys, THAT bears repitition far and wide! The "conservancy" is one of if not THE biggest landowner in the WORLD excepting governments, and few of them even. Peace and love, George.

[Dahoser]

Choosing a time when the attention of all Americans is on our conflict with Iraq, the Senate is poised to vote...

Instead of voting on anything, what Frist and Company should be doing now is making the RATS do a Jimmy Stewart filibuster on Estrada.

[B. A. Conservative]

The environmental groups tie up large chunks of land that would make wonderful development property by opposing permitting applications using the myriad governmental regulations they sponsored or initiated. By making development prohibitively expensive through regulation, they then come back and buy the property for pennies on the dollar. Then they deed restrict it, and then sell it to government, thereby theoretically locking it up forever.

This bill must be opposed and not allowed to become law. But that is not sufficient. The key to breaking the backs of these groups is the flat tax or the fair. Once the charitable deduction that even most conservatives believe is important is eliminated, real organizations worthy of true charitable support will continue to thrive and prosper. But these anti-capitalist front organizations posing as friends of the environment will be economically castrated.

We don't just want tax cuts; we demand meaningful tax reform. And meaningful tax reform is the flat tax or the fair tax or a combination of the two.

Americans will never be free as long as government controls its taxing authority independent of the taxpayers. Most Americans do not pay income tax at all. And the lion's share of income tax paying Americans pay only a token portion of the tax. The graduated income tax is an abomination to free people. And Americans will never be free as long as government controls our currency. A free people must force their government back on the gold standard.

Defeating this bill is important, but do not lose sight of the truly important goals.

[SuperLuminal]

bttt

[madfly]

Organizations such as the Nature Conservancy do not need more corporate welfare, which this bill provides by giving them an advantage as a buyer that is not available to other bidders. The Nature Conservancy pays no income taxes at all, as do other bidders in the private sector. The Nature Conservancy's income is directly enhanced by grants from government ($147 million between 1997 and 2001) and another $142 million in 2000 alone), from contracts, and the sale of land to the government.

According to a recent report in Range magazine, the Nature Conservancy owns more than 90-million acres of land around the world, about 12-million acres – a chunk the size of Switzerland – of which is in the United States. Along with the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and two other environmental organizations, the Nature Conservancy is listed as "executing agency," or "collaborating organization," on more than $800 million in annual grants from the U.N.'s Global Environment Facility. There is no justification for these subsidies.

Governments already own more than 40 percent of the total land area in America. The total additional acreage owned by the more than 1,200 "conservancy" organizations is not known. These organizations, in "public/private" partnerships with government, are taking control of the foundation of our free-market economy. This objective is not expressed publicly by either government, or by environmental organizations. Nevertheless, the expansion of public ownership of land is the objective, and the transformation of our economic system is the inevitable consequence. It is the objective set forth by the United Nations in 1976:

"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. ... The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."

The CARE Act of 2003 subsidizes these giant green corporations in order to expedite the removal of land from private individuals, and the "inefficiencies of the market." Since socialism is defined to be "public ownership of the sources of production," every sale of land to the government, or to an environmental organization acting as a surrogate government partner, moves the nations closer to a socialist economy.

Henry Lamb

[madfly]

ping

[farmfriend]

ping

[Delphinium]

Unbelievable!, they are so sneaky.

Thanks for the ping.

[Spangler]

bump for later read

[tomakaze]

bump

[JFoxbear]

BTTT! Constant Vigilance, on all fronts, of all foes, foreign and domestic...