


Ask the community...
I've worked with several non-profits on similar structures. One approach to consider is forming a separate for-profit entity that acquires the land, with investors who are looking for the tax benefits. The non-profit would then be granted specific rights to implement the regenerative agriculture projects. The key is making sure the conservation easement genuinely restricts development rights that have real value. If you're looking at agricultural land with legitimate development potential that you're permanently restricting, that can work. But if you're trying to inflate values artificially, you're heading for trouble.
Thanks for sharing this structure! I'm curious - how do you typically handle the ongoing relationship between the for-profit entity that holds the land and the non-profit doing the regenerative work? Is there a lease arrangement, or do you set up some kind of management agreement?
We typically use a long-term management agreement that gives the non-profit the right to implement their regenerative programs while the for-profit entity maintains ownership. This agreement needs to be established before the easement is placed, as it becomes part of the baseline documentation. For funding, we usually structure it so a portion of the tax benefit received by investors flows to the non-profit through a contractual arrangement. This provides ongoing operational funding beyond just the initial land access. Be careful though - the management fees must be reasonable and market-based, or the IRS might view the entire arrangement as a disguised donation scheme rather than a legitimate business structure.
Has anyone tried using partnership structures where investors get both tax benefits AND a share of agricultural revenue? We set up something similar for a client where they placed a conservation easement on 70% of the property, but kept 30% available for sustainable agricultural production. The investors got their tax deduction plus ongoing income from the farming operation.
Just want to add that the TurboTax "5 days early" feature is such a scam, especially with Child Tax Credit returns. I paid for it too, thinking I'd get my refund faster, but it only applies AFTER the IRS releases your refund. With the PATH Act hold, that doesn't even start until mid-February at the earliest. Basically TurboTax knows most people with kids file early hoping for a quick refund, so they push this "feature" knowing full well the IRS won't release those refunds any sooner regardless. I complained and actually got my money back from TurboTax for this - might be worth trying!
Did you just call TurboTax customer service to get the refund for the early feature? I want to try this too since I'm in the same boat - paid for early refund but still waiting because of Child Tax Credit.
I used their chat support on the website and explained that I felt the feature was misleadingly advertised since it didn't disclose the PATH Act restrictions for Child Tax Credit claims. I was polite but firm that I wouldn't have purchased it had I known it wouldn't actually get my refund any earlier due to the mandatory IRS hold. The first agent tried to explain how the feature works, but I asked to escalate to a supervisor who approved the refund. Just be persistent - they know it's a bit deceptive for CTC filers!
For what it's worth, I'm in the same situation. Filed on Jan 19, claimed Child Tax Credit for my two kids, and still showing "Processing" on the IRS site. Called my tax preparer and they said it's 100% normal and almost all Child Tax Credit returns are held until late February regardless of when you filed. They told me to expect my refund around March 5-10 based on previous years' patterns. The PATH Act delay is annoying but apparently it's helped reduce tax fraud significantly. Just trying to be patient at this point!
Do you know if this also applies to the Additional Child Tax Credit or just the regular Child Tax Credit? I claimed both and wondering if that makes the wait even longer.
Here's what people aren't mentioning - the type of settlement matters HUGELY for how it's taxed. If your settlement was for physical injuries or illness, that part is generally NOT taxable (even the attorney portion). If it was for emotional distress, lost wages, or punitive damages, different rules apply. What was your settlement for? That makes all the difference in whether you pay taxes on the full amount or not. Some settlements are completely tax-free while others are fully taxable.
It was an employment lawsuit - wrongful termination and some back wages. Does that change things? I'm still confused about whether I need to itemize to deduct the attorney fees or if I can take the standard deduction AND still deduct the attorney portion somehow.
That's actually good news! For employment-related lawsuits including wrongful termination, you can deduct your attorney fees as an "above-the-line" deduction. This means you can still take the standard deduction AND deduct your attorney fees. You'll want to look at Schedule 1, Line 24 "Other adjustments" and write "ATTORNEY FEES" next to it with the amount. This way you're not taxed on money that went straight to your attorney. Employment cases specifically have this special treatment thanks to a tax law change that was made specifically to address this unfair situation.
The issue isn't just with settlements - it's with our stupid tax code in general. You're being double-taxed on money you never received! Your lawyer also pays taxes on that same money as income. So the government gets to tax the same dollar twice. And depending on your income level and state, you might end up paying 40%+ in taxes on money that you never even saw. The whole system is designed to extract maximum revenue.
While I agree the tax code is complex, this isn't quite accurate. For employment-related cases (which OP mentioned in comments), the attorney fees can be deducted as an above-the-line deduction. Congress actually fixed this problem for certain types of cases, including employment claims, civil rights cases, and whistleblower claims specifically to prevent double taxation.
I work at a bank (not for the IRS) and I can tell you that sending 183,000 money orders would probably result in them being returned to you unprocessed. We have policies about handling large volumes of instruments like this, and I'm sure the IRS does too. Plus, money orders usually cost $1-2 each to purchase, so you'd be spending an extra $183k-$366k just on fees! If you're serious about resolving your tax issue, consider reaching out to a tax attorney who specializes in IRS disputes. The upfront cost might seem high, but they often save you way more than their fee in the long run.
I never thought about the fees for the money orders! That would be wild to pay double just to make a point. Do tax attorneys actually have any success fighting the IRS? Everyone I've talked to makes them sound like an unstoppable force.
Tax attorneys absolutely can be successful against the IRS. The key is finding one who specializes specifically in tax controversy or tax resolution, not just a general tax preparer. The IRS makes mistakes all the time, and they have various programs like Offers in Compromise that can reduce legitimate tax debts. I've seen clients get tax bills reduced by 50-70% with the right representation. The IRS is powerful but not infallible, and they have internal procedures for resolving disputes. The biggest mistake people make is trying to handle complex tax issues themselves without understanding the technical aspects of tax law.
Have you considered requesting an audit reconsideration? If the amount is incorrect, you can submit documentation showing why the assessment is wrong. I had a $68k bill that was based on incorrect information from my employer, and after filing for reconsideration with the right documentation, it was reduced to under $4k.
This is the real answer! Audit reconsideration saved me when I had a similar issue. The key is having all your documentation extremely organized and being very specific about what errors were made in the original assessment.
Xan Dae
Don't forget state tax returns! Different states have different retention requirements. For example, California has a 4-year statute of limitations instead of the IRS's 3 years. If you've moved between states, you might need to check the rules for each state you've filed in.
0 coins
Carmella Popescu
ā¢Oh snap, I didn't even think about state returns! I've lived in three different states over the last decade (moved for work a couple times). Does that mean I need to look up each state's rules?
0 coins
Xan Dae
ā¢Yes, you should check each state's rules where you've filed. The statute of limitations varies - California is 4 years, New York is 3 years, and some others have different timeframes. If you want to keep things simple without researching each state, just keep everything for 7 years. That covers the longest standard statute across all states and the federal extension for substantial underreporting. But if you're really tight on space, it's worth looking up the specific states where you filed.
0 coins
Fiona Gallagher
I learned a neat trick from my accountant - take pictures of all tax docs with my phone and save them to a dedicated Google Drive folder each year. Then I have a reminder set for 7 years later to delete that year's folder if I want. Easy system and doesn't take up any physical space!
0 coins
Thais Soares
ā¢Is that secure enough though? I'm worried about tax docs in the cloud. Wouldn't a local hard drive be safer?
0 coins