Mike Carey (R-OH)
Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Certainty Act
A Republican bill with 4 Republican cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Certainty Act, gives partnerships a chance to settle certain open tax disputes involving donations of conservation easements. Under this legislation, eligible partnerships can make a formal election to resolve their tax liabilities by paying a specific settlement amount. The bill sets rules for how these settlement amounts are calculated based on capital contributions and tax penalties. It also includes provisions for grouping common marketing arrangements together to handle these disputes in an organized way. Furthermore, the legislation updates standards for qualified conservation contributions and certified historic structures by defining what qualifies as a contributing building.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The legislation establishes formal settlement terms and penalties to collect disputed revenues from conservation easement deductions.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The act clarifies definitions for contributing buildings in historic preservation and establishes clear guidelines for resolving disputes.
- Scored +2
Would farmers be better off under this?
The legislation provides clarity and structured resolution paths for land conservation contributions.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -3
Does this cut taxes for middle-income families?
The bill requires taxpayers participating in the conservation easement settlement to pay a tax component based on high rates.
- Scored -3
Does this cut taxes for small businesses?
Partnerships resolving open tax disputes must remit settlement and penalty amounts, increasing their tax-related liabilities.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Partners and ultimate taxpayers involved in these partnerships face out-of-pocket costs and penalties under the settlement terms.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2: This section provides partnerships with an election period to resolve open tax controversies regarding conservation easements, which can clear up ongoing legal uncertainties. It lets people settle their tax liabilities without having to go through lengthy, expensive court battles over valuation issues.
-
Section 2(e)(4): This provision waives certain interest charges on the settlement amount if the payment is made by the last day of the election period, which can save taxpayers money on back interest.
-
Section 3: This section amends the Internal Revenue Code to clarify the rules for historic structures by formally defining a "contributing building" based on National Register documentation or certification by the Secretary of the Interior. This brings clearer standards for property owners dealing with historic preservation contributions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b)(4) and Section 2(b)(9): Once an election is made and becomes effective, partnerships, partners, and ultimate taxpayers waive any right to contest the settlement amounts or calculations either administratively or judicially. This means individuals lose their right to challenge the government's math or fight the outcome in court once they agree to the settlement.
-
Section 2(e) and Section 2(f): Taxpayers who choose to participate must pay a settlement amount that includes tax components and penalty components based on specific penalty rates. This could result in significant out-of-pocket costs for individuals who claimed these deductions.
-
Section 2(f)(3): If a partner does not contribute their share of the settlement amount, the Secretary can assess that non-contributing partner with their allocable amount plus an extra 25 percent penalty. This puts a financial burden on individual partners if others in their partnership fail to pay.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — The legislation provides clarity and structured resolution paths for land conservation contributions. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaires involved in these partnership structures face financial liabilities and penalties to settle open tax matters. Would business owners be better off under this? — Partnership owners face mandatory settlement payments, waiver of legal rights, and potential 25 percent penalties for non-contributing partners. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals who invested in partnerships offering conservation easement deductions face back taxes and penalties. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Wealthy investors in conservation easement partnerships are required to pay settlement and penalty components to resolve open disputes. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Partners and ultimate taxpayers involved in these partnerships face out-of-pocket costs and penalties under the settlement terms. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Taxpayers who claimed deductions under disputed easements must pay settlement amounts and waived rights to challenge them. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill imposes settlement costs and removes administrative or judicial avenues to contest the calculated liabilities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The act clarifies definitions for contributing buildings in historic preservation and establishes clear guidelines for resolving disputes.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The legislation establishes formal settlement terms and penalties to collect disputed revenues from conservation easement deductions. Is this likely to grow the economy? — By resolving protracted legal disputes over conservation easements, the bill provides financial certainty and reduces litigation costs. Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — The bill requires taxpayers participating in the conservation easement settlement to pay a tax component based on high rates. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Partnerships resolving open tax disputes must remit settlement and penalty amounts, increasing their tax-related liabilities. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Partnerships facing open tax controversies must navigate complex settlement and penalty calculations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill updates definitions and standards for qualified conservation contributions and historic structures.
- 10/15/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Aaron BeanRepublican · Florida
Earl CarterRepublican · Georgia
Charles FleischmannRepublican · Tennessee
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina