Stafford Ferry CE
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
There's a real fuggin' shock.
this is ridiculous.
right now, you are allowed to look at the land you own and decide what to do with it right now, including but not limited to locking it up from development for 647 years and on.
if perpetuity is such an issue just be reminded that in 647 years if the american people decide that their laws and courts interpretation of them should be different, then they can decide and vote on changes to their laws and their courts and change the uses of that land.
but it doesn't matter, cause their ain't gonna be shit to hunt, eat, or drink in 647 years.
where the hell did 647 years come from anyway?
right now, you are allowed to look at the land you own and decide what to do with it right now, including but not limited to locking it up from development for 647 years and on.
if perpetuity is such an issue just be reminded that in 647 years if the american people decide that their laws and courts interpretation of them should be different, then they can decide and vote on changes to their laws and their courts and change the uses of that land.
but it doesn't matter, cause their ain't gonna be shit to hunt, eat, or drink in 647 years.
where the hell did 647 years come from anyway?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,686
I dont see why this "perpetuity" is unique. Its selling part of the land and devalues the future value of the land. Like any other easement.
If one of these was to get reversed - what kind of return should the state/taxpayers get? If the CE was done in 1996 - the value of the same CE in 2024 is several times what it was then.
If one of these was to get reversed - what kind of return should the state/taxpayers get? If the CE was done in 1996 - the value of the same CE in 2024 is several times what it was then.
i'm hung up on why anyone is hung up on perpetuity.
a man or woman who decides their land should be passed to their children in my mind is no different than the CE 647 years from now.
shouldn't the people 647 years from now get a say in who should have ownership or what should happen to that land after the man or woman who owned it 647 years earlier passes? their great great great great great grandchildren have no rightful ownership of it! the owners 647 years ago say in things ended when they did!
That's not a compromise. One side loses every benefit for which they likely entered into a CE. I'll try to explain and illustrate why no property owner should "compromise" with an elected official on this point.
If state law prohibits these families from being allowed a perpetual CE, they get no value reduction for estate tax purposes on a term-certain easement. The reduction in value for estate tax purposes comes from the fact that at the time of death the land is absent any development rights, for perpetuity, thus reducing values a developer would pay and reducing the appraised value on Form 706 (Estate Tax Return).
IRC Sec 2031 - The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.
No perpetuity - no restrictions on future use - no reduction for estate tax values on which the decedent must pay any estate taxes. That is the practical application when eliminating the right to do CEs in perpetuity.
From your posts, I don't think you want to impose that heavy estate tax burden on these families. I've not talked to anyone who promotes anti-perpetuity ideas who wants that outcome. Yet what anti-perpetuity folks are advocating for costs these families huge amounts of money in the practical application of the position they are promoting.
Just across Montana, removal of the perpetuity possibility for CEs is going to result in millions of additional income taxes and billions in additional estate taxes. Term easements or easements that terminate at death eliminate any income tax savings and any estate tax savings. That's a very unfair outcome for these land rich and cash poor families to get a huge tax bill to satisfy the ideological positions of those against CEs in perpetuity.
Point being, we can have these ideologies all we want. Yet, it is the other person who pays the costs for some imposing that ideology.
Again, that is not a compromise.
Addicting
Well-known member
Does that apply if the land is in a trust and no ownership changes?
Yes.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
We are already forced to live with perpetual private property decisions every day. We watch private property owners choose to develop land constantly, and nobody bats an eye about the perpetual nature of a subdivision or an industrial park.
If the perpetual nature of private property rights is only acceptable for development, and never acceptable for conservation, the inevitable result is that we eventually will have nothing left to conserve.
If you don’t want to sign one, don’t. But other private property owners should have that option if they so choose.
I think the simple fact that people get so upset about perpetual easements limiting their ability to make a buck by developing property perfectly illustrates why these easements are so important.
So if it takes tearing an empire asunder through massive violence & jaunty pipers & drummers to stop perpetuity, perhaps it has more staying power than we think?
