SB209 - Revise term length of conservation easements

I’ve sent 25 emails to Montana state legislators, Tony was the only one woo answered, his reply was he is trying to preserve farm last as farm land. This is not a response. They are just trying to push this through.
 
Land transfer, ending FWP easements, and ending perpetual easements are published planks in the party platform. Can’t be surprised when they try to act on what they said they’d do. Maybe time to let them know that these planks ought to be replaced?

View attachment 358556
Source is Pg. 13 of the current MTGOP platform.
It's a bit shocking to folks that politicians are going to do what they said they were going to do. They used to hide their intentions in yesteryears civilized society.
 
Okay maybe I don't understand the point you were trying to make. You said, "When you grant the power company an easement - its perpetual." But I work for an energy company and our easements are not all perpetual.
The easements your electric lines are in are not perpetual?

Or you’re talking about temporary construction easements?
 
The easements your electric lines are in are not perpetual?

Or you’re talking about temporary construction easements?
Easements usually are. That doesn’t mean that access can’t turn into a real pain in the ass
 
The easements your electric lines are in are not perpetual?

Or you’re talking about temporary construction easements?
Some are but not all. Others are if certain requirements are kept, such as maintenance, testing etc. But others are for set terms and then able to be cancelled by either party after the term expires. Not all of these easements are for electric lines (roads, pipelines, etc)
 
Last edited:
Land transfer, ending FWP easements, and ending perpetual easements are published planks in the party platform. Can’t be surprised when they try to act on what they said they’d do. Maybe time to let them know that these planks ought to be replaced?

View attachment 358556
Source is Pg. 13 of the current MTGOP platform.
I went to a couple county Republican committee meetings years ago. The closest I will ever come to knowing what a rape victim feels.

Anyone who has not attended this year's Lincoln Day Dinner need not raise their hand. You won't be recognized.
 
I am no tax person (though i hate paying them!).... can someone describe the benefits this would have vs putting the assets in a trust with family if the intent is to pass it down? What advantage for the landowner does a CE have over a trust?
 
Anyone who has not attended this year's Lincoln Day Dinner need not raise their hand. You won't be recognized.

Our county GOP Committee renamed the Lincoln/Reagan Dinner to the Lincoln/Reagan/Trump dinner....

I am on good terms with some folks on that committee. Like I said, good folks. Well meaning. True believers. Tought nuts to crack.
 
A transfer to a Trust will be subject to estate taxes at full market value, with market value being defined as "highest and best use." In other words, subdivision for those lands in the intermountain west that are critical wildlife habitat, yet the place people would pay a premium to have their ranchette.

A conservation easement would be valued the same way - highest and best use. But, with a properly designed CE, the land cannot be subdivided, so the highest and best use would exclude subdividing and development. Thus, an estate transfer to an heir or a Trust for the heirs will be at a much lower value and likely escape any estate taxes that often requiring selling the land to pay the taxes.
 
I am no tax person (though i hate paying them!).... can someone describe the benefits this would have vs putting the assets in a trust with family if the intent is to pass it down? What advantage for the landowner does a CE have over a trust?
Randy said it best, but I also think a CE can provide a cash infusion for a farmer/rancher to retire without having to sell to their heir(s), leaving them in crippling debt. I think most family farm/ranch operations are land rich but cash poor and that's not a great equation for retirement.
 
A transfer to a Trust will be subject to estate taxes at full market value, with market value being defined as "highest and best use." In other words, subdivision for those lands in the intermountain west that are critical wildlife habitat, yet the place people would pay a premium to have their ranchette.

A conservation easement would be valued the same way - highest and best use. But, with a properly designed CE, the land cannot be subdivided, so the highest and best use would exclude subdividing and development. Thus, an estate transfer to an heir or a Trust for the heirs will be at a much lower value and likely escape any estate taxes that often requiring selling the land to pay the taxes.
That may well be true for places close to town, but this is not giving me the warm fuzzes for those where a subdivision is unlikely. I must be missing something, what is the value for those places?
 
Last edited:
Randy said it best, but I also think a CE can provide a cash infusion for a farmer/rancher to retire without having to sell to their heir(s), leaving them in crippling debt. I think most family farm/ranch operations are land rich but cash poor and that's not a great equation for retirement.
Many ranchers just wear out before they retire.
 
That may well be true for places close to town, but this is not giving me the warm fuzzes for those where a subdivision is unlikely. I must be missing something, what is the value for those places.
Well - one thing could be stuffing the place with wind, solar, or batteries - or other energy development....
 
Well - one thing could be stuffing the place with wind, solar, or batteries - or other energy development....
Other energy development is kind of off the table with the split ownership of minerals. Start mentioning that CE may be away to put a stop to wind and solar and some of the proponents of the bill may just turn into opponents.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
114,576
Messages
2,063,245
Members
36,657
Latest member
colbymoms
Back
Top