Internal Revenue Bulletin 2024-43 (PDF rendition): IRS Revenue Rulings

Preserve advance releases and the authoritative Internal Revenue Bulletin rendition; directory timestamps are file-publication metadata, not legal effective dates. HTML bulletins begin June 2003; earlier available issues require full PDF parsing. Whole bulletin rendition: numbered items are identified below; other legal material and publisher context remain included. This is not a new standalone advance release.

Bulletin No. 2024–43
October 21, 2024
HIGHLIGHTS
OF THIS ISSUE
These synopses are intended only as aids to the reader in
identifying the subject matter covered. They may not be
relied upon as authoritative interpretations.
EMPLOYEE PLANS
Notice 2024-73, page 1007.
This notice provides guidance regarding discrete issues
related to the application of the nondiscrimination rules of
section 403(b)(12) with respect to the ERISA long-term,
part-time (LTPT) employee rules for a section 403(b) plan.
The ERISA LTPT rules were added under section 125 of
the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 and are effective for plan
years beginning after December 31, 2024. This notice also
(1) provides that the Department of the Treasury and the
Internal Revenue Service anticipate issuing proposed regu-
lations with respect to section 403(b)(12)(D) and guidance
with respect to sections 202(c) and 203(b)(4) of ERISA, (2)
announces that the final regulation that the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS intend to issue related to long term, part
time employees under section 401(k) plans will apply no
earlier than to plan years that begin on or after January 1,
2026, and (3) asks for comments on the content of this
notice.
EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS
Announcement 2024-35, page 1013.
Revocation of IRC 501(c)(3) Organizations for failure to
meet the code section requirements. Contributions made to
the organizations by individual donors are no longer deduct-
ible under IRC 170(b)(1)(A).
INCOME TAX
Notice 2024-70, page 1001.
This notice explains the circumstances under which the
four-year replacement period under section 1033(e)(2) is
extended for livestock sold on account of drought. The
Appendix to this notice contains a list of counties that expe-
rienced exceptional, extreme, or severe drought conditions
during the 12-month period ending August 31, 2024. Tax-
payers may use this list to determine if any extension is
available.
Rev. Proc. 2024-38, page 1010.
This revenue procedure provides guidance on the effect on
the income requirements under §§ 142(d) and 42 of the
alternative income eligibility requirements for the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development–Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing (HUD–VASH) program set forth in the
notice published by HUD in the Federal Register on August
13, 2024, 89 FR 65769.
Rev. Rul. 2024-22, page 980.
The revenue ruling holds that Bourse de Montréal (MX),
a regulated exchange of Québec, Canada, is a “qualified
board or exchange” within the meaning of section 1256(g)
(7)(C).
Rev. Rul. 2024-23, page 981.
The revenue ruling holds that European Energy Exchange,
a regulated exchange of Germany, is a “qualified board or
exchange” within the meaning of section 1256(g)(7)(C).
T.D. 10007, page 981.
This document contains final regulations that identify cer-
tain syndicated conservation easement transactions and
substantially similar transactions as listed transactions, a
type of reportable transaction. Material advisors and cer-
tain participants in these listed transactions are required
to file disclosures with the IRS and are subject to penalties
for failure to disclose. The regulations affect participants in
these transactions as well as material advisors.
Finding Lists begin on page ii.

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Notice 2024-72, page 1005.
This notice grants relief under section 7508A to taxpayers
affected by terrorist attacks throughout 2023 and 2024
in the State of Israel. The notice postpones deadlines for
certain time-sensitive taxpayer acts (e.g., filing and paying
taxes) and government acts (e.g., assessing and collecting
taxes) for affected taxpayers for a full year, until September
30, 2025. The “covered area” includes the State of Israel,
the West Bank and Gaza. The notice also identifies catego-
ries of affected taxpayers and provides a non-exhaustive
list of the acts postponed. The separate determination of
terroristic action and grant of relief in this notice will also
postpone acts that were postponed by Notice 2023-71 until
September 30, 2025 for taxpayers eligible for relief under
both notices.

The IRS Mission
Provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service by helping
them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and
enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.
Introduction
The Internal Revenue Bulletin is the authoritative instrument
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for announcing offi-
cial rulings and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service
and for publishing Treasury Decisions, Executive Orders, Tax
Conventions, legislation, court decisions, and other items of
general interest. It is published weekly.
It is the policy of the Service to publish in the Bulletin all sub-
stantive rulings necessary to promote a uniform application
of the tax laws, including all rulings that supersede, revoke,
modify, or amend any of those previously published in the
Bulletin. All published rulings apply retroactively unless other-
wise indicated. Procedures relating solely to matters of inter-
nal management are not published; however, statements of
internal practices and procedures that affect the rights and
duties of taxpayers are published.
Revenue rulings represent the conclusions of the Service
on the application of the law to the pivotal facts stated in
the revenue ruling. In those based on positions taken in rul-
ings to taxpayers or technical advice to Service field offices,
identifying details and information of a confidential nature are
deleted to prevent unwarranted invasions of privacy and to
comply with statutory requirements.
Rulings and procedures reported in the Bulletin do not have the
force and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they
may be used as precedents. Unpublished rulings will not be
relied on, used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in
the disposition of other cases. In applying published rulings and
procedures, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations,
court decisions, rulings, and procedures must be considered,
and Service personnel and others concerned are cautioned
against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless
the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.
The Bulletin is divided into four parts as follows:
Part I.—1986 Code.
This part includes rulings and decisions based on provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Part II.—Treaties and Tax Legislation.
This part is divided into two subparts as follows: Subpart A,
Tax Conventions and Other Related Items, and Subpart B,
Legislation and Related Committee Reports.
Part III.—Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous.
To the extent practicable, pertinent cross references to these
subjects are contained in the other Parts and Subparts. Also
included in this part are Bank Secrecy Act Administrative
Rulings. Bank Secrecy Act Administrative Rulings are issued
by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Assistant
Secretary (Enforcement).
Part IV.—Items of General Interest.
This part includes notices of proposed rulemakings, disbar-
ment and suspension lists, and announcements.
The last Bulletin for each month includes a cumulative index
for the matters published during the preceding months. These
monthly indexes are cumulated on a semiannual basis, and are
published in the last Bulletin of each semiannual period.
The contents of this publication are not copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. A citation of the Internal Revenue Bulletin as the source would be appropriate.
October 21, 2024 Bulletin No. 2024–43

Part I
Section 1256.—Section
1256 Contracts Marked to
Market
(Also §§ 446, 481, 7805; 1.446-1, 301.7805-1).
Rev. Rul. 2024-22
ISSUE
Is Bourse de Montréal (MX), which is
a regulated exchange of Québec, Canada,
a qualified board or exchange within the
meaning of § 1256(g)(7)(C) of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code (Code)
1
?
FACTS
MX is a regulated exchange of Qué-
bec, Canada. On December 23, 2011, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) published final rules regarding
the registration with the CFTC of for-
eign boards of trade (FBOT). See Reg-
istration of Foreign Boards of Trade, 76
FR 80674 (Dec. 23, 2011), codified at
17 CFR Part 48. The effective date for the
final rules was February 21, 2012. Under
the CFTC FBOT registration system, the
CFTC may issue an Order of Registration
to an FBOT, allowing the FBOT to pro-
vide direct access to its electronic trad-
ing and order matching system from the
United States. On August 25, 2015, the
CFTC granted an Order of Registration
to MX under the CFTC FBOT registra-
tion system. An FBOT’s status under the
CFTC FBOT registration system is posted
online by the CFTC.
Rev. Rul. 86-7, 1986-1 C.B. 295, deter-
mined that the Mercantile Division of the
Montréal Exchange is a qualified board or
exchange within the meaning of § 1256(g)
(7)(C). The Mercantile Division of the
Montréal Exchange was an exchange
associated with MX that has ceased oper-
ations and is now dormant.
L AW
Section 1256(g)(7) provides that the
term “qualified board or exchange” means:
(A) a national securities exchange
that is registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,
(B) a domestic board of trade desig-
nated as a contract market by the CFTC,
or
(C) any other exchange, board of trade,
or other market that the Secretary of the
Treasury or her delegate determines has
rules adequate to carry out the purposes of
§ 1256.
HOLDING
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
determines that MX, which is a regulated
exchange of Québec, Canada, is a quali-
fied board or exchange within the mean-
ing of § 1256(g)(7)(C) as long as MX
holds a valid Order of Registration under
the CFTC FBOT registration system.
Effect on other revenue rulings
Rev. Rul. 86-7 is obsoleted.
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
Under the authority of § 7805(b)(8),
this revenue ruling is effective for MX
Contracts entered into on or after Novem-
ber 1, 2024. In the preceding sentence, the
term “MX Contracts” means futures con-
tracts and futures contract options that are
traded on or subject to the rules of MX,
that are described in § 1256(g)(1)(A), and
that are not covered by the exception in
§ 1256(b)(2).
Under the authority of § 7805(b)(8),
the IRS will not challenge a position taken
prior to November 1, 2024, with respect to
a transaction occurring prior to such date,
by a taxpayer that reasonably relied on the
conclusion in Rev. Rul. 86-7.
CHANGE IN METHOD OF
ACCOUNTING
A change in the treatment of MX Con-
tracts to comply with this revenue ruling is
a change in method of accounting within
the meaning of §§ 446 and 481 and the
regulations thereunder. The Commissioner
grants consent to a taxpayer to change its
method of accounting for MX Contracts
entered into on or after November 1, 2024,
to the § 1256 mark-to-market method for
the first taxable year during which the tax-
payer holds such contracts. The require-
ment to file a Form 3115, Application for
Change in Accounting Method, in § 1.446-
1(e)(3)(i) of the Income Tax Regulations
is waived. The change is made on a cut-off
basis and is inapplicable to MX Contracts
that were entered into before November
1, 2024. Because the change is made on a
“cut-off” basis, there is no potential omis-
sion or duplication of income or deduc-
tions, and an adjustment under § 481 is
neither permitted nor required.
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this revenue
ruling is Jonathan A. LaPlante of the
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Finan-
cial Institutions & Products). For further
information regarding this revenue rul-
ing, contact Jonathan A. LaPlante at (202)
317-5102 (not a toll-free number).

1
Unless otherwise specified, all “Section” or “§” references are to sections of the Code.
October 21, 2024 980 Bulletin No. 2024–43

Section 1256.—Section
1256 Contracts Marked to
Market
(Also §§ 446, 481, 7805, 1.446-1, 301.7805-1).
Rev. Rul. 2024-23
ISSUE
Is European Energy Exchange, which
is a regulated exchange of Germany, a
qualified board or exchange within the
meaning of § 1256(g)(7)(C) of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code (Code)
1
?
FACTS
European Energy Exchange is a regu-
lated exchange of Germany. On December
23, 2011, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) published final rules
regarding the registration with the CFTC of
foreign boards of trade (FBOT). See Regis-
tration of Foreign Boards of Trade, 76 FR
80674 (Dec. 23, 2011), codified at 17 CFR
Part 48. The effective date for the final rules
was February 21, 2012. Under the CFTC
FBOT registration system, the CFTC may
issue an Order of Registration to an FBOT,
allowing the FBOT to provide direct access
to its electronic trading and order matching
system from the United States. On Novem-
ber 5, 2019, the CFTC granted an Order of
Registration to European Energy Exchange
under the CFTC FBOT registration system.
An FBOT’s status under the CFTC FBOT
registration system is posted online by the
CFTC.
L AW
Section 1256(g)(7) provides that the
term “qualified board or exchange” means:
(A) a national securities exchange
that is registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,
(B) a domestic board of trade desig-
nated as a contract market by the CFTC,
or
(C) any other exchange, board of trade,
or other market that the Secretary of the
Treasury or her delegate determines has
rules adequate to carry out the purposes of
§ 1256.
HOLDING
The Internal Revenue Service deter-
mines that European Energy Exchange,
which is a regulated exchange of Ger-
many, is a qualified board or exchange
within the meaning of § 1256(g)(7)(C) as
long as European Energy Exchange holds
a valid Order of Registration under the
CFTC FBOT registration system.
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
Under the authority of § 7805(b)(8),
this revenue ruling is effective for Euro-
pean Energy Exchange Contracts entered
into on or after November 1, 2024. In
the preceding sentence, the term “Euro-
pean Energy Exchange Contracts” means
futures contracts and futures contract
options that are traded on or subject to
the rules of European Energy Exchange,
that are described in § 1256(g)(1)(A), and
that are not covered by the exception in
§ 1256(b)(2).
CHANGE IN METHOD OF
ACCOUNTING
A change in the treatment of European
Energy Exchange Contracts to comply
with this revenue ruling is a change in
method of accounting within the mean-
ing of §§ 446 and 481 and the regulations
thereunder. The Commissioner grants
consent to a taxpayer to change its method
of accounting for European Energy
Exchange Contracts entered into on or
after November 1, 2024, to the § 1256
mark-to-market method for the first tax-
able year during which the taxpayer holds
such contracts. The requirement to file a
Form 3115, Application for Change in
Accounting Method, in § 1.446-1(e)(3)(i)
of the Income Tax Regulations is waived.
The change is made on a cut-off basis
and is inapplicable to European Energy
Exchange Contracts that were entered into
before November 1, 2024. Because the
change is made on a “cut-off” basis, there
is no potential omission or duplication
of income or deductions, and an adjust-
ment under § 481 is neither permitted nor
required.
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this revenue
ruling is Shawn Tetelman of the Office of
Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Insti-
tutions & Products). For further informa-
tion regarding this revenue ruling, contact
Shawn Tetelman at (202) 317-7053 (not a
toll-free number).
26 CFR 1.6011-9: Syndicated conservation ease-
ment listed transactions
T.D. 10007
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
Syndicated Conservation
Easement Transactions as
Listed Transactions
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains
final regulations that identify certain syn-
dicated conservation easement transac-
tions and substantially similar transactions
as listed transactions, a type of reportable
transaction. Material advisors and certain
participants in these listed transactions are
required to file disclosures with the IRS
and are subject to penalties for failure to
disclose. The regulations affect partici-
pants in these transactions as well as mate-
rial advisors.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations
are effective on October 8, 2024.
Applicability date: For applicability
dates, see §1.6011-9(h).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Concerning any provisions
1
Unless otherwise specified, all “Section” or “§” references are to sections of the Code.
Bulletin No. 2024–43 981 October 21, 2024

October 21, 2024 982 Bulletin No. 2024–43
in the final regulations within the juris-
diction of the Associate Chief Counsel
(Income Tax & Accounting), Joshua S.
Klaber, (202) 317-4624, and Eugene Kir-
man, (202) 317-5149, and concerning any
provisions in the final regulations within
the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief
Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Indus-
tries), Charles Wien, (202) 317-5279 (not
toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority
This document amends the Income
Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) by add-
ing final regulations under section 6011
of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to
identify certain syndicated conservation
easement transactions and substantially
similar transactions as listed transactions,
a type of reportable transaction (final reg-
ulations).
Section 6001 of the Code provides
an express delegation of authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate
(Secretary), requiring every taxpayer to
keep the records, render the statements,
make the returns, and comply with the
rules and regulations that the Secretary
deems necessary to demonstrate tax liabil-
ity and prescribes, either by notice served
or by regulations.
Section 6011 of the Code provides an
express delegation of authority to the Sec-
retary, requiring every taxpayer to “make a
return or statement according to the forms
and regulations prescribed by the Secre-
tary” and “include therein the information
required by such forms or regulations.”
In addition, section 6707A(c)(1) of
the Code, in defining the term “report-
able transaction” relating to the imposi-
tion of penalties under section 6707A(a)
on “[a]ny person who fails to include on
any return or statement any information
with respect to a reportable transaction
which is required under section 6011 to be
included with such return or statement,”
provides an express delegation of author-
ity to the Secretary, stating that, “[t]he
term ‘reportable transaction’ means any
transaction with respect to which infor-
mation is required to be included with
a return or statement because, as deter-
mined under regulations prescribed under
section 6011, such transaction is of a type
which the Secretary determines as having
a potential for tax avoidance or evasion.”
Section 6707A(c)(2), in defining the term
“listed transaction” provides an express
delegation of authority to the Secretary,
stating that, “[t]he term ‘listed transaction’
means a reportable transaction which is
the same as, or substantially similar to, a
transaction specifically identified by the
Secretary as a tax avoidance transaction
for purposes of section 6011.”
The final regulations are also issued
under the express delegation of authority
under section 7805(a) of the Code.
Background
I. The Proposed Regulations
On December 8, 2022, the Depart-
ment of the Treasury (Treasury Depart-
ment) and the IRS published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (REG-106134-22)
in the Federal Register (87 FR 75185)
proposing regulations that would iden-
tify certain syndicated conservation
easement transactions and substantially
similar transactions as “listed transac-
tions” for purposes of §1.6011-4(b)(2)
and sections 6111 and 6112 of the Code
(proposed regulations). The provisions of
the proposed regulations are explained in
greater detail in the preamble to the pro-
posed regulations. The Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS received 26 comments
in response to the proposed regula-
tions and notice of public hearing that
are the subject of this final rulemaking.
The comments are available for public
inspection at https://www.regulations.
gov or upon request. A public hearing
on the proposed regulations was held by
teleconference on March 1, 2023, at 10
a.m. Eastern Time, at which five speakers
provided testimony.
After full consideration of the com-
ments received and the testimony pro-
vided, these final regulations adopt the
proposed regulations with certain revi-
sions described in the Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions.
II. Section 605 of the SECURE 2.0 Act
The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022
(SECURE 2.0 Act), enacted as Division
T of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2023, Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459
(December 29, 2022), was enacted just 15
days after publication of the proposed reg-
ulations. Section 605(a) of the SECURE
2.0 Act added section 170(h)(7)(A) to the
Code, which provides that a contribution
by a partnership (whether directly or as
a distributive share of a contribution of
another partnership) is not treated as a
qualified conservation contribution for
purposes of section 170 if the amount of
such contribution exceeds 2.5 times the
sum of each partner’s relevant basis in
such partnership, as defined in section
170(h)(7)(B). Section 170(h)(7)(F) states
that the rules of section 170(h)(7) apply
equally to S corporations and other pass-
through entities.
Section 605(a) of the SECURE 2.0
Act also added section 170(h)(7)(C)
through (E) to the Code, which provide
three exceptions to the general disallow-
ance rule in section 170(h)(7)(A). Sec-
tion 170(h)(7)(C) creates an exception
for contributions by a pass-through entity
that satisfy a three-year holding period;
section 170(h)(7)(D) creates an exception
for contributions made by family pass-
through entities; and section 170(h)(7)
(E) creates an exception for contributions
made to preserve a building that is a cer-
tified historic structure (as defined in sec-
tion 170(h)(4)(C)).
Section 605(b) of the SECURE 2.0
Act added section 170(f)(19) to the Code,
creating additional reporting requirements
for any qualified conservation contribu-
tion (1) the conservation purpose of which
is the preservation of any building which
is a certified historic structure (as defined
in section 170(h)(4)(C)), (2) which is
made by a partnership (whether directly
or as a distributive share of a contribu-
tion of another partnership), and (3) the
amount of which exceeds 2.5 times the
sum of each partner’s relevant basis (as
defined in section 170(h)(7)) in the part-
nership making the contribution. Section
170(f)(19)(C) states that, except as may be
otherwise provided by the Secretary, the
rules of section 170(f)(19) apply to S cor-
porations and other pass-through entities
in the same manner as such rules apply to
partnerships.
Section 170(f)(19)(A) provides that no
deduction is allowed for such a contribu-

Bulletin No. 2024–43 983 October 21, 2024
tion unless the entity making the contri-
bution (1) includes on its return for the
taxable year in which the contribution
is made a statement that the entity made
such a contribution and (2) provides such
information about the contribution as the
Secretary may require.
Section 605(c) of the SECURE 2.0 Act
provides that no inference is intended as to
the appropriate treatment of contributions
made in taxable years ending on or before
the date of the SECURE 2.0 Act’s enact-
ment (December 29, 2022), or as to any
contribution for which a deduction is not
disallowed by reason of section 170(h)(7).
On November 20, 2023, the Trea-
sury Department and the IRS published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-
112916-23) in the Federal Register (88
FR 80910) proposing regulations con-
cerning the statutory disallowance rule
enacted by the SECURE 2.0 Act, includ-
ing the calculation of relevant basis. On
June 28, 2024, the Treasury Department
and the IRS finalized these regulations in
TD 9999 (89 FR 54284).
Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions
This Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions summarizes
all significant comments addressing the
proposed regulations, and describes and
responds to comments concerning: (1)
the listed transaction system generally;
(2) conservation easements generally; (3)
the continued necessity of finalizing these
regulations following passage of section
605 of the SECURE 2.0 Act; (4) the ele-
ments of the listed transaction identified in
these final regulations; and (5) the role of
donee organizations under these final reg-
ulations.
Comments outside the scope of this
rulemaking are not adopted.
I. Comments Addressing the General
Rules of the Listed Transaction System
Many comments addressed rules that
apply generally to any listed transaction.
While these comments are outside the
scope of this rulemaking, the Treasury
Department and the IRS have nonetheless
considered these comments in finalizing
these regulations.
A. Requirement to report for currently
“open” periods upon identification of a
listed transaction
Several commenters argued that the pro-
posed regulations’ listed transaction desig-
nation is impermissibly retroactive because
taxpayers who previously filed tax returns
(or amended tax returns) reflecting their
participation in syndicated conservation
easement transactions but that did not dis-
close their participation pursuant to Notice
2017-10 will be required to disclose those
transactions once these final regulations are
published in the Federal Register. The com-
menters opined that this so-called retroac-
tive reach of the proposed listed transaction
designation is unfair and likely a violation
of law under various theories, including that
it may be a taking under the Fifth Amend-
ment or constitute involuntary servitude
under the Thirteenth Amendment, and that
it undermines the purpose of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice and
comment process. Several commenters
noted that the Tax Court has not determined
whether a listed transaction designation can
be applied retroactively; thus, their theory
has not been resolved judicially.
The reporting rules for listed transac-
tions are outside the scope of these final
regulations, which merely identify a
listed transaction. The reporting rules for
listed transactions are found in §1.6011-
4, which was issued pursuant to notice
and comment and finalized most recently
in TD 9350 (72 FR 43146), published in
2007 and which is not amended by these
final regulations. Section 1.6011-4(e)
(2)(i) requires reporting of transactions
entered into prior to the publication of
guidance identifying a transaction as a
listed transaction if the statute of limita-
tions for assessment of tax is still open
when the transaction becomes a listed
transaction. While the reporting mandated
by §1.6011-4 may be with respect to prior
periods, the disclosure obligation is itself
not retroactive – it is a current reporting
obligation. Thus, the comments regard-
ing an impermissible retroactive burden
required by §1.6011-4 are without merit.
B. Determining an “open year”
Several commenters requested addi-
tional guidance on what constitutes an
“open year” for purposes of reporting
the listed transaction. These commenters
opined that the final regulations should not
be able to hold open (or re-open) a statute
of limitations for a return that was filed
before the relevant transaction became a
listed transaction. One commenter stated
that such a rule would result in taxpayers
currently under audit and disputing penal-
ties based on an expired statute of limita-
tions finding one legal basis of their case
evaporated, undoing months or years of
analysis and evaluation.
Guidance on open years for purposes
of applying §1.6011-4 is outside the scope
of these final regulations, which merely
identify a listed transaction. However, if
a taxpayer who is required to disclose a
listed transaction for a taxable year for
which the statute of limitations has not
expired prior to the identification of the
listed transaction fails to do so, then the
taxpayer’s statute of limitations will con-
tinue to stay open for that taxable year
as provided in section 6501(c)(10) of the
Code. Section 6501(c)(10) provides that,
if a taxpayer fails to include on any return
or statement for any taxable year any
information with respect to a listed trans-
action (as defined in section 6707A(c)(2)
of the Code) which is required under sec-
tion 6011 to be included with such return
or statement, the time for assessment of
any tax imposed by the Code with respect
to such transaction does not expire before
the date that is one year after the earlier
of (1) the date the taxpayer provides the
required information or (2) the date that
a material advisor meets the requirements
of section 6112 with respect to a request
by the Secretary under section 6112(b)
relating to such transaction with respect to
such taxpayer. Section 301.6501(c)-1(g)
(3)(iii) of the Procedure and Adminis-
tration Regulations (26 CFR part 301),
which was issued pursuant to notice and
comment and finalized most recently in
TD 9718 (80 FR 16973), published in
2015, and which is not amended by these
final regulations, provides (1) that the tax-
able years to which the failure to disclose
relates include each taxable year that the
taxpayer participated (as defined under
section 6011 and the regulations there-
under) in a transaction that was identified
as a listed transaction and for which the
taxpayer failed to disclose the listed trans-

October 21, 2024 984 Bulletin No. 2024–43
action as required under section 6011, and
(2) if the taxable year in which the tax-
payer participated in the listed transac-
tion is different from the taxable year in
which the taxpayer is required to disclose
the listed transaction under section 6011,
the taxable years to which the failure to
disclose relates include each taxable year
for which the taxpayer participated in the
transaction.
Several commenters asked for guidance
as to what constitutes an “open” tax year for
taxpayers that took the position they were
not required to file a Form 8886, Report-
able Transaction Disclosure Statement,
because Notice 2017-10 was invalidated.
This requested guidance is also outside the
scope of these final regulations for the rea-
sons discussed in the prior paragraph.
C. Abating section 6707A penalties
One commenter expressed concern that
there are no adequate procedures or pol-
icies for abating section 6707A penalties
with respect to listed transactions. This
comment is outside the scope of these
final regulations as the regulations merely
identify a listed transaction. The rules
concerning section 6707A penalties are
found in §301.6707A-1, which was issued
pursuant to notice and comment and final-
ized most recently in TD 9853 (84 FR
11217), published in 2019 and which is
not amended by these final regulations.
D. Material advisors
The proposed regulations provided no
special rules for material advisors. How-
ever, the effect of identifying a listed
transaction is, in part, to require certain
disclosures from material advisors.
One commenter asked that the final
regulations provide guidance to appraisers
on the application of any material advisor
requirements, and suggested that, if an
appraiser is engaged after an easement is
put in place, the appraiser should not be
considered a material advisor.
The requested guidance is outside the
scope of these final regulations; however,
the Treasury Department and the IRS
note that the definition of material advi-
sor is found in §301.6111-3(b), which
was issued pursuant to notice and com-
ment and finalized in TD 9351 (72 FR
43157), published in 2007 and which is
not amended by these final regulations. A
material advisor is a person who makes a
“tax statement,” as defined in §301.6111-
3(b)(2)(ii), and derives gross income
in excess of the “threshold amount,” as
defined in §301.6111-3(b)(3) (generally,
$10,000 for listed transactions). Section
301.6111-3 contains no exception for
providing advice “after” the transaction
is entered into. Section 301.6111-3(b)(4)
(i) provides that a person will be treated
as becoming a material advisor when all
of the following events have occurred (in
no particular order): (1) the person pro-
vides material aid, assistance, or advice
as described in §301.6111-3(b)(2); (2) the
person directly or indirectly derives gross
income in excess of the threshold amount
as described in §301.6111-3(b)(3); and
(3) the transaction is entered into by the
taxpayer to whom or for whose benefit the
person provided the tax statement, or in the
case of a tax statement provided to another
material advisor, when the transaction is
entered into by a taxpayer to whom or for
whose benefit that material advisor pro-
vided a tax statement. Thus, an appraiser
that is engaged after an easement is put in
place can be a material adviser based on
statements or actions after an easement is
put in place.
A few commenters argued that the
“retroactivity component” to material
advisors (due to required disclosures) is
impermissible or burdensome. This com-
ment is without merit and outside the
scope of these final regulations; however,
the Treasury Department and the IRS note
that §301.6111-3(b)(4)(iii) provides that,
if a transaction that was not a reportable
transaction is identified as a listed trans-
action in published guidance after the
occurrence of the events described in
§301.6111-3(b)(4)(i), the person will be
treated as becoming a material advisor on
the date the transaction is identified as a
listed transaction. As the resulting obli-
gations imposed are limited to actions the
person must take thereafter, the require-
ment is not retroactive.
II. Comments Concerning Conservation
Easements Generally
Several commenters addressed aspects
of conservation easements that are out-
side the scope of these final regulations
but have nonetheless been considered in
adopting these final regulations. This part
II of this Summary of Comments and
Explanation of Revisions describes and
responds to comments relating to: (1) the
consistency of these final regulations with
the congressional intent to conserve land;
(2) overvaluation abuse in abusive syndi-
cated conservation easement transactions;
(3) whether disclosure of the listed trans-
actions is needed since taxpayers must file
Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contri-
butions; and (4) requests for enforcement
data on syndicated conservation easement
transactions.
A. Supporting conservation while
combatting abuse
One commenter noted that abusive
syndicated conservation easement trans-
actions are antithetical to the concept of
charity that section 170(h) was designed
to enable. The Treasury Department and
the IRS agree.
However, several commenters opined
that identification of syndicated conserva-
tion easement transactions as listed trans-
actions is inconsistent with congressional
intent to promote conservation. These
commenters argued that the proposed
regulations disincentivize conservation
by increasing the audit risk of taxpayers
involved in syndicated conservation ease-
ment transactions and that the uncertainty
relating to what is considered a “substan-
tially similar” transaction has a chilling
effect. These commenters further argued
that the proposed regulations go beyond
the scope of section 170(h)(7), violate the
separation of powers, and are contrary to
the priorities of the Administration.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
do not agree with the comments criticiz-
ing the identification of syndicated con-
servation easement transactions as listed
transactions. Contrary to the commenters’
assertions, Congress has made it clear that
it is concerned with abusive syndicated
conservation easement transactions. See,
e.g., Syndicated Conservation-Easement
Transactions, S. Prt. 116-44 (August
2020). The minimal impact on taxpayers
who claim legitimate charitable contribu-
tion deductions for qualified conservation
contributions and who may decide to file a

Bulletin No. 2024–43 985 October 21, 2024
protective disclosure is far outweighed by
the benefit of requiring disclosure for the
identified transactions. In addition, com-
batting abusive tax shelters is a priority for
the Federal government.
B. Valuation abuse
Several commenters noted that the
central problem with abusive syndicated
conservation easements is inaccurate,
inflated, and flawed appraisals and the
associated overvaluation of conservation
easements. A few commenters asked that
these final regulations be replaced with
“meaningful guidance” on valuation or
appraisal methodology, including modifi-
cations to the rules for qualified appraisals
under §1.170A-17 and guidance on how
to determine the highest and best use of
properties for purposes of easement val-
uation. One commenter suggested that
the IRS litigate fraudulent appraisal prac-
tices as an alternative to “questioning the
long-standing conservation practices of
donee organizations.” One commenter
suggested establishing an enhanced
appraisal process similar to the process
the IRS has established for the art com-
munity.
Any guidance on valuation is outside
the scope of these final regulations, which
are limited to identifying a listed transac-
tion. The purpose of these final regula-
tions is to require taxpayers and material
advisors to report transactions for which
the claimed value of a syndicated con-
servation easement contribution strongly
indicates overvaluation and thus tax
avoidance. The Treasury Department and
the IRS have challenged and will continue
to challenge abusive appraisal practices
and overvaluation.
C. Disclosures
Some commenters questioned why the
IRS needs to identify certain syndicated
conservation easements as a listed trans-
action when contributions of conservation
easements are already disclosed on the
Form 8283, which contains, among other
information, the easement’s appraised
value, when and how the property was
acquired, the donor’s cost or adjusted
basis, the amount deducted, and the date
of the contribution. The commenters noted
that the Form 8283 must be prepared com-
pletely and accurately because a deduc-
tion will be disallowed if any information
is missing.
The Form 8283, which is filed as a part
of a taxpayer’s tax return, does not include
all the information contained on Form
8886. It also does not alert the Office of
Tax Shelter Analysis to the taxpayer’s par-
ticipation in an abusive transaction, nor
does it trigger disclosure and other obli-
gations of material advisors to the trans-
action. Accordingly, these comments are
not adopted.
D. Requests for enforcement data
Some commenters, citing to an issue in
the remand of CIC Services, LLC v. IRS,
592 F. Supp. 3d 677 (E.D. Tenn. 2022),
asserted that the proposed regulations
are arbitrary and capricious because, in
their opinion, the APA requires numeri-
cal data on syndicated conservation ease-
ment transactions as part of the rationale
for identifying a listed transaction. The
commenters requested the number of
past syndicated conservation easement
transactions, the number of syndicated
conservation easement transactions chal-
lenged, the status and/or outcome of every
current syndicated conservation easement
challenge, the number of syndicated con-
servation easement transactions deemed
abusive by courts, the dollar amounts
involved in syndicated conservation ease-
ment transactions, the number of taxpay-
ers affected by syndicated conservation
easement transactions, the nature and
amount of the contributions involved, the
value and acreage of the property con-
served by syndicated conservation ease-
ment transactions, and the effect of syndi-
cated conservation easement transactions
on nature and wildlife.
CIC Services and other authorities do
not require the public release of enforce-
ment data, or the other analysis comment-
ers requested, as a part of rulemaking.
Section 6011 and the regulations thereun-
der require that the IRS (1) determine that
a transaction is a tax avoidance transaction
and (2) identify the transaction as a listed
transaction by notice, regulation, or other
form of published guidance. The Treasury
Department and the IRS have consistently
maintained, since the issuance of Notice
2017-10, that certain syndicated conserva-
tion easement transactions are tax avoid-
ance transactions and have identified them
as such by notice or regulation. An offer
to potentially be allocated a charitable
contribution deduction that is at least 2.5
times one’s investment, likely resulting in
a positive after-tax financial benefit from
what is supposed to be a charitable con-
tribution, is strongly indicative of a tax
avoidance transaction and has been identi-
fied by Congress as such. See, e.g., section
170(h)(7). Further, the data requested by
commenters is unrelated to whether the
identified transactions are tax avoidance
transactions.
III. Comments Regarding the Necessity
of These Final Regulations in Light of
Section 605 of the SECURE 2.0 Act
Several commenters questioned the
need for the proposed regulations to be
adopted as final regulations, given the
enactment in December of 2022 of section
605 of the SECURE 2.0 Act, which added
section 170(h)(7) to the Code to disallow
a deduction for “the vast majority” of the
abusive syndicated conservation easement
transactions identified in the proposed
regulations. Commenters asked that, in
light of the legislation, the proposed reg-
ulations either be withdrawn or be revised
to take a “more surgical approach” that is
in accordance with the new statute (and
addresses other concerns).
Some of these commenters opined that
the proposed regulations were overbroad
and inconsistent with congressional intent,
in part because the proposed regulations
did not include the three exceptions to sec-
tion 170(h)(7)(A) that Congress included
in section 170(h)(7)(C) through (E).
These commenters argued that syndicated
conservation easement transactions that
meet an exception to section 170(h)(7)(A)
should also be excepted from the defini-
tion of the listed transaction identified in
the proposed regulations.
Other commenters supported adopting
final regulations to help the IRS identify
promoters, material advisors, and donee
organizations involved in abusive syndi-
cated conservation easement transactions.
The commenters noted that section 605 of
the SECURE 2.0 Act is prospective only.
These commenters, however, suggested a

October 21, 2024 986 Bulletin No. 2024–43
few modifications to the proposed rules,
which are discussed later in this part III
and in part IV of this Summary of Com-
ments and Explanation of Revisions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have concluded that it is in the interest of
sound tax administration to continue to
identify abusive syndicated conservation
easement transactions as listed transac-
tions, notwithstanding passage of section
605 of the SECURE 2.0 Act. However, in
adopting the proposed regulations as final
regulations, the Treasury Department and
the IRS have made several modifications
to the proposed rules, as described in this
Summary of Comments and Explanation
of Revisions. Thus, these final regulations
are consistent with the commenters’ rec-
ommendation that the final regulations
take “a more surgical approach” to the
definition of the syndicated conservation
easement listed transaction following the
enactment of section 170(h)(7).
Specifically, these final regulations
cover three major classes of abusive syn-
dicated conservation easement transac-
tions (and substantially similar transac-
tions): (1) those that involve contributions
occurring before December 30, 2022; (2)
those for which a charitable contribution
deduction is not automatically disallowed
by section 170(h)(7); and (3) those that
substitute the contribution of a fee simple
interest in real property for the contribu-
tion of a conservation easement.
A. Transactions occurring before
December 30, 2022
Section 170(h)(7)(A) does not apply to
contributions made on or before Decem-
ber 29, 2022. As a result, these final reg-
ulations are necessary to obtain reporting
of transactions that are the same as, or
substantially similar to, syndicated con-
servation easement transactions in cases
in which the conservation easements
were contributed before December 30,
2022, and the taxpayers did not disclose
the transaction pursuant to Notice 2017-
10. Thus, these final regulations impose
reporting requirements on taxpayers who
had not previously disclosed their partic-
ipation in transactions that are the same
as, or substantially similar to, syndicated
conservation easement transactions to the
extent that a taxpayer’s participation in the
transaction occurred in one or more tax-
able years as to which the statute of lim-
itations had not run as of the date these
final regulations identify the transaction as
a listed transaction.
Some commenters contended that,
since many taxpayers have already
reported their transactions under Notice
2017-10, the IRS already has the infor-
mation reporting targeted by the proposed
regulations. The Treasury Department and
the IRS agree that, in such cases, duplica-
tive reporting under these final regulations
is unnecessary. Accordingly, these final
regulations explicitly provide that tax-
payers who fully disclosed their participa-
tion in syndicated conservation easement
transactions pursuant to Notice 2017-10
do not need to disclose again under these
final regulations for any taxable years
covered by the prior disclosure.
B. Transactions not automatically
disallowed by section 170(h)(7)
The final regulations do not include
an exception for transactions that are
excluded from the automatic disallowance
rule in section 170(h)(7). Of note, the
SECURE 2.0 Act, which was enacted after
the proposed regulations were issued, does
not provide that the exceptions to section
170(h)(7)(A) contained in section 170(h)
(7)(C) through (E) are also exceptions for
purposes of the listed transaction rules.
To the contrary, section 605(c)(2) of the
SECURE 2.0 Act explicitly states: “No
inference is intended as to the appropriate
treatment of ...any contribution for which
a deduction is not disallowed by reason of
section 170(h)(7) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as added by this section.”
Thus, Congress has indicated that the fact
that such transactions are not automati-
cally disallowed does not mean that such
transactions could not be abusive.
There are at least two types of conser-
vation easement transactions for which
a charitable contribution deduction is
not automatically disallowed by section
170(h)(7) that are appropriately consid-
ered listed transactions. First, transactions
satisfying any of the three exceptions
found in section 170(h)(7)(C) through
(E) that also contain all the elements of
a transaction identified as a listed trans-
action under these final regulations con-
tinue to be transactions that the Treasury
Department and the IRS view as likely
to be abusive. Thus, the final regulations
do not include any exceptions for trans-
actions described in section 170(h)(7)(C)
through (E).
Second, any syndicated conservation
easement transaction for which a chari-
table contribution deduction is not auto-
matically disallowed by section 170(h)(7)
because the amount of the partnership’s
contribution does not exceed 2.5 times the
sum of each partner’s relevant basis in the
partnership is nevertheless a listed trans-
action with respect to any partner who
received promotional materials offering
the possibility of being allocated a share
of the contribution that equals or exceeds
2.5 times that partner’s investment.
C. Transactions that involve other
contributions of real property
The preamble to the proposed regula-
tions stated that transactions in which the
contributed property is described in sec-
tion 170(h)(2)(A) or (B), or is a fee inter-
est in real property, are transactions sub-
stantially similar to the listed transaction
identified in proposed §1.6011-9(b). Sev-
eral commenters noted that this language
appears to imply that any transaction that
meets the elements of the listed transac-
tion identified in the proposed regulations,
but that consists of the contribution of
real property, is substantially similar to
the listed transaction identified in the pro-
posed regulations.
One commenter supported the inclusion
of fee simple contributions in the pream-
ble to the proposed regulations and asked
that fee simple transactions be expressly
identified in the regulatory text of the final
regulations. Another commenter asked
that the final regulations “clarify” whether
fee simple contributions are considered
substantially similar to syndicated conser-
vation easement transactions, stating that
“the preamble language is not law.” How-
ever, several other commenters questioned
why contributions of fee simple interests
in property would be considered transac-
tions that are substantially similar to the
syndicated conservation easement trans-
action identified in the proposed regula-
tions. One commenter contended that the
tax consequences, specifically taxpayer

Bulletin No. 2024–43 987 October 21, 2024
contribution base limitations and carry-
over periods, are different for fee simple
contributions and conservation easement
contributions.
The Treasury Department and IRS
continue to believe that a transaction that
meets the elements of the listed transac-
tion identified in these final regulations,
but consists of the contribution of a fee
simple interest rather than of a conserva-
tion easement, is substantially similar to
the listed transaction identified in these
final regulations. The commenters ques-
tioning the treatment of contributions of
fee simple interests as substantially simi-
lar transactions failed to address the broad
definition of substantially similar found in
§1.6011-4(c)(4), which was issued after
notice and comment; that Congress spe-
cifically adopted the term “substantially
similar” in its subsequent enactment of
section 6707A(c)(2); and that Congress
specifically referenced the definition in
§1.6011-4(c)(4) when explaining that pro-
vision. See Footnote 232 of House Report
108-548(I), 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004,
at 261 (June 16, 2004) (House Report)
(emphasis added):
The provision states that, except as pro-
vided in regulations, a listed transaction
means a reportable transaction, which
is the same as, or substantially similar
to, a transaction specifically identified
by the Secretary as a tax avoidance
transaction for purposes of section
6011. For this purpose, it is expected
that the definition of “substantially
similar” will be the definition used in
Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6011–4(c)(4). How-
ever, the Secretary may modify this
definition (as well as the definitions
of “listed transaction” and “reportable
transactions”) as appropriate.
In particular, despite the differing tax-
payer contribution base limitations and
carryover periods between a fee simple
donation and a conservation easement
donation, the transactions can result in
similar types of tax consequences and be
either factually similar or based on the
same or a similar tax strategy.
In sum, the Treasury Department and
the IRS agree that any contribution of
real property (including contributions
of fee simple interests and contributions
described in section 170(h)(2)(A) or (B))
that meets the elements of the listed trans-
action identified in the proposed regula-
tions is a transaction that is substantially
similar to the listed transaction identified
in the proposed regulations. Accord-
ingly, §1.6011-9(c)(7) of these final reg-
ulations explicitly states that a transaction
that meets all the elements described in
§1.6011-9(b), except that the transaction
involves the contribution of a fee simple
interest or the contribution of a real prop-
erty interest described in section 170(h)
(2)(A) or (B) instead of a conservation
easement, is substantially similar (within
the meaning of §1.6011-4(c)(4)) to the
transaction described in §1.6011-9(b).
The final regulations contain an exam-
ple showing a transaction involving the
contribution of a fee simple interest that
is substantially similar to the transaction
described in §1.6011-9(b).
D. Other substantially similar
transactions
Multiple commenters raised general
concerns about the potential scope of
transactions that are “substantially simi-
lar” to the listed transaction identified in
the proposed regulations. Several of those
commenters opined that the substantially
similar rule is void for vagueness or over-
broad, and some commenters requested
that the term be made more specific. Sev-
eral commenters asked whether the 2.5
times rule in proposed §1.6011-9(b)(1) is
a bright-line rule; in other words, whether
transactions for which the highest esti-
mate of charitable contribution deduction
in the promotional materials is less than
2.5 times a taxpayer’s investment could be
substantially similar to the listed transac-
tion identified in these regulations.
As previously discussed, the term “sub-
stantially similar” is part of the statutory
definition of a listed transaction in section
6707A(c)(2); furthermore, the regulatory
definition found in §1.6011-4(c)(4) was
adopted after notice and comment and
has been viewed favorably by Congress.
Under §1.6011-4(c)(4), whether a transac-
tion is “substantially similar” to a syndi-
cated conservation easement transaction
depends on the tax consequences, the
tax strategy, and other facts and circum-
stances related to the transaction. Section
1.6011-4(c)(4) further provides that the
term substantially similar must be broadly
construed in favor of disclosure.
The “substantially similar” rule pro-
vides an important backstop against advi-
sors’ and promoters’ attempts to avoid
the reporting requirements. Consistent
with that objective, these final regulations
generally do not circumscribe the types
of transactions that may be substantially
similar to the listed transaction identified
in these final regulations. Nonetheless,
as discussed in part IV.A.3. of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, these final regulations do pro-
vide that the 2.5 times rule is a bright-
line rule. Thus, transactions in which the
promotional materials offer investors the
possibility of being allocated a charitable
contribution deduction of anything less
than 2.5 times a taxpayer’s investment
generally are not substantially similar to
the listed transaction identified in these
final regulations. However, if the taxpayer
is nonetheless allocated a charitable con-
tribution deduction that equals or exceeds
2.5 times the taxpayer’s investment, the
rebuttable presumption in §1.6011-9(d)(3)
would apply.
Several commenters asked whether
transactions that involve contributions
other than real property, such as those that
involve contributions of artwork or other
non-cash items, are listed transactions.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have determined that such transactions
are not “substantially similar” for pur-
poses of these final regulations because
this listed transaction relates to contri-
butions of real property, not of personal
property. The Treasury Department and
the IRS will continue to evaluate whether
the transactions raised by commenters are
tax avoidance transactions and may pro-
pose to identify such transactions as listed
transactions in future guidance.
A few commenters asked whether
transactions that do not involve a contri-
bution by a pass-through entity (such as a
transaction involving a contribution by an
individual or a corporation) are “substan-
tially similar” transactions. The Treasury
Department and the IRS have determined
that transactions that do not involve a
contribution by a pass-through entity are
not considered substantially similar trans-
actions; however, these transactions like-

October 21, 2024 988 Bulletin No. 2024–43
wise could be proposed to be identified as
tax avoidance transactions in future guid-
ance.
One commenter asked whether trans-
actions that involve deductions other than
under section 170 (that is, transactions
involving the “use of different Code pro-
visions”), are considered “substantially
similar” to the syndicated conservation
easement transaction identified in the
proposed regulations. It is possible that
a pass-through entity could use a deduc-
tion other than allowed under section 170
to obtain the same or a similar type of
tax consequences, and that such transac-
tion would either be factually similar or
based on the same or similar tax strategy
to the listed transaction identified in these
final regulations. Therefore, the Treasury
Department and IRS conclude it is possi-
ble that a transaction that abuses the appli-
cation of a section of the Code other than
section 170, for example, section 642(c),
could be a substantially similar transac-
tion. Under §1.6011-4(f)(1), taxpayers
who are uncertain whether a particular
transaction is substantially similar to a
syndicated conservation easement trans-
action may request a private letter ruling
from the IRS.
Several commenters expressed concern
that, given the uncertainty about whether
a particular transaction would be substan-
tially similar to a listed transaction, the
regulations could have a chilling effect on
the willingness of qualified organizations
to accept contributions of conservation
easements if the section 4965 carveout
were eliminated in the final regulations.
As described in part V of this Summary of
Comments and Explanation of Revisions,
these final regulations maintain the section
4965 carveout for qualified organizations,
which addresses those concerns.
IV. Comments Regarding Elements of
the Listed Transaction Identified in the
Proposed Regulations
Several comments focused on the ele-
ments of the listed transaction identified
in the proposed regulations. This part
IV describes and responds to these com-
ments, specifically comments regarding
(1) the 2.5 times rule; (2) application of
the 2.5 times rule; (3) timing rules; and (4)
definitions.
A. The 2.5 times rule
Commenters addressed the rationale
for the 2.5 times multiple, interaction with
the 2.5 times rule in section 170(h)(7), and
whether 2.5 times is a bright line.
1. Rationale for the 2.5 times multiple
Several commenters questioned the
rationale for the 2.5 times multiple in the
proposed regulations. Some commenters
argued that, depending on the top mar-
ginal tax rate, a 2.5 times multiple would
result in minimal, if any, tax benefit to
the investor. One commenter opined that,
because there is no explanation for how
the multiple was determined, there is no
way to determine whether this criterion is
reasonable.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have concluded, consistent with Notice
2017-10, that once a transaction offers
the possibility of a charitable contribu-
tion deduction that equals or exceeds an
amount that is 2.5 times the amount of the
taxpayer’s investment, the transaction is
a tax avoidance transaction that justifies
a reporting obligation. At this 2.5 times
threshold, a taxpayer in the highest current
marginal tax bracket claiming a charita-
ble contribution deduction for a qualified
conservation contribution will approx-
imately break even before considering
State tax benefits, and, for any amounts
above 2.5 times, will have an economic
gain directly from making the charitable
contribution deduction. This multiple is
also aligned with the 2.5 times threshold
established by Congress in section 605
of the SECURE 2.0 Act, which disallows
certain deductions at the partnership level
for contributions exceeding 2.5 times the
sum of each partner’s relevant basis. Thus,
the Treasury Department and the IRS con-
clude that it is reasonable and in the sound
interest of tax administration to adopt the
2.5 times threshold as proposed.
2. Interaction with the 2.5 times rule in
section 170(h)(7)
Several commenters addressed the
interaction of the 2.5 times rule with
section 170(h)(7) and asked whether
only transactions in which the charita-
ble contribution deduction promised in
the promotional materials is exactly 2.5
times the investment need to be disclosed
(because transactions in which the deduc-
tion amount exceeds 2.5 times the invest-
ment are generally disallowed by section
170(h)(7)). Under these final regulations,
both transactions in which the charitable
contribution deduction promised in the
promotional materials is exactly 2.5 times
the investment and transactions in which
the charitable contribution deduction
promised in the promotional materials
exceeds 2.5 times the investment must be
disclosed.
As discussed in part III of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, certain transactions for which
a deduction is not disallowed by section
170(h)(7) are nevertheless considered
listed transactions.
3. Whether 2.5 times is a bright line
As noted in part III.D. of this Summary
of Comments and Explanation of Revi-
sions, several commenters asked whether
2.5 times is a bright line; in other words,
whether transactions for which the high-
est estimate of charitable contribution
deduction in the promotional materials
is less than 2.5 times a taxpayer’s invest-
ment could be considered substantially
similar transactions. One of these com-
menters encouraged the IRS to clarify
that the 2.5 times rule is not intended to
create or imply a safe harbor for exces-
sive valuations below the 2.5 times
threshold and that the 2.5 times rule does
not implicitly approve charitable contri-
bution deduction amounts less than 2.5
times a taxpayer’s investment. This com-
menter noted that, regardless of whether
a contribution is a listed transaction
pursuant to §1.6011-4(b)(2), it remains
subject to all the relevant requirements
of law, including those regarding valua-
tion and substantiation of that valuation
by means of a qualified appraisal by a
qualified appraiser pursuant to §1.170A-
17 that is subject to review by the IRS
for its accuracy. A few commenters asked
the IRS to pick an actual number (for
example, 2.0, 2.25, 2.45, or 2.49 times)
at which a transaction will incur greater
IRS scrutiny.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree that taxpayers need some certainty

Bulletin No. 2024–43 989 October 21, 2024
on which transactions need to be disclosed
to the IRS. The Treasury Department and
the IRS have determined that a transac-
tion in which the promotional materi-
als offer the taxpayer the possibility of
being allocated a charitable contribution
deduction of only an amount less than 2.5
times the taxpayer’s investment and for
which the taxpayer is actually allocated
a charitable contribution deduction of an
amount less than 2.5 times the taxpay-
er’s investment (so that the rebuttable
presumption in §1.6011-9(d)(3) does
not apply) generally is not “substantially
similar” to the listed transaction identi-
fied in these final regulations. This deter-
mination takes into account both the need
for taxpayer certainty on reporting obli-
gations and the possibility of being allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
the amount of which is less than 2.5 times
the amount of the taxpayer’s investment
presents less risk of the type of net-pos-
itive financial benefit to investors that
exists at and above the 2.5 times thresh-
old. This bright-line rule does not imply
that valuations giving rise to an amount
less than 2.5 times a taxpayer’s invest-
ment are properly valued. The Treasury
Department and the IRS agree with the
commenter that, regardless of whether a
contribution is a reportable transaction
pursuant to §1.6011-4, it remains subject
to all the relevant requirements of law.
For example, a claimed charitable con-
tribution deduction amount that is 2.0
times the partner’s investment may still
be overvalued or unsubstantiated, and
the valuation remains subject to review
by the IRS for accuracy.
In view of the foregoing, these final
regulations add new §1.6011-9(d)(1) to
state that the 2.5 times threshold is a bright
line. However, this new rule also provides
that, if a pass-through entity engages in a
series of transactions (for example, con-
tribution of an easement followed by con-
tribution of a fee simple interest) with a
principal purpose of avoiding the applica-
tion of this bright-line rule, the series of
transactions may be disregarded, or the
arrangement may be recharacterized in
accordance with its substance. Whether a
series of transactions has a principal pur-
pose of avoiding the application of this
bright-line rule is determined based on all
the facts and circumstances.
B. Application of the 2.5 times rule
The proposed regulations contained
three rules to address potential avoidance
of the 2.5 times rule. Taxpayers com-
mented on each of these rules.
1. Multiple suggested deduction amounts
The proposed regulations contained a
rule that, if the promotional materials sug-
gest or imply a range of possible charitable
contribution deduction amounts that may
be allocated to the taxpayer, the highest
suggested or implied deduction amount
will determine whether the 2.5 times rule
is met. In addition, if one piece of promo-
tional materials (for example, an appraisal
or oral statement) suggests or implies
a higher charitable contribution deduc-
tion amount than suggested or implied
by other promotional materials, then the
highest suggested charitable contribution
deduction amount determines whether
the 2.5 times rule is met. As the pream-
ble to the proposed regulations explained,
this rule is intended to prevent promoters
from circumventing the 2.5 times rule by
having promotional materials contain lan-
guage that is inconsistent as to the amount
of the potential charitable contribution
deduction.
One commenter stated that the pro-
posed rule “does not apply to ambigu-
ities in the taxpayer’s materials, it allows
the Treasury to create ambiguities in the
taxpayer’s materials.” However, another
commenter asked whether a transaction
that meets the elements of the listed trans-
action identified in the proposed regula-
tions, except that the partnership merely
promises that the investment will “grow
by” 2.5 times without mentioning a char-
itable contribution deduction, is consid-
ered a “substantially similar” transaction.
The intent of the rule is to prevent promot-
ers from circumventing the 2.5 times rule
by creating ambiguous promotional mate-
rials, and the transaction described in the
preceding sentence would be a substan-
tially similar transaction. Thus, these final
regulations adopt the rule as proposed.
2. Rebuttable presumption
The proposed regulations included a
rebuttable presumption deeming the 2.5
times rule to be met if (1) the pass-through
entity donates a conservation easement
within three years following a taxpayer’s
investment in the pass-through entity, (2)
the pass-through entity allocates a charita-
ble contribution deduction to the taxpayer
the amount of which equals or exceeds
two and one-half times the amount of the
taxpayer’s investment, and (3) the tax-
payer claims a deduction the amount of
which equals or exceeds two and one-half
times the amount of the taxpayer’s invest-
ment. The proposed regulations provided
that this presumption may be rebutted if
the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction
of the Commissioner that none of the pro-
motional materials contained a suggestion
or implication that investors might be allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
the amount of which equals or exceeds an
amount that is two and one-half times the
amount of their investment in the pass-
through entity.
Several commenters objected to the
rebuttable presumption rule, stating that
it is “arbitrary and capricious;” that tax-
payers cannot prove a negative (particu-
larly with respect to oral representations);
that any attempt to prove in court that oral
representations were not made is hearsay;
that the regulations do not speak to how a
taxpayer is able to rebut the presumption;
that it seems to be attempting to switch the
penalty burden from the IRS to taxpayers;
and that the IRS has demonstrated to tax-
payers that it will neither be fair nor lis-
ten to reasonable evidence in syndicated
conservation easement tax disputes. Com-
menters asked for guidance on how tax-
payers may be able to rebut the rebuttable
presumption.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
conclude that the rebuttable presump-
tion is reasonable because it is unlikely
that a taxpayer would claim a deduction
for 250 percent of their investment in a
pass-through entity within three years
of making that investment and not have
received promotional materials offering
the possibility to do so. This presumption
is needed to address transactions with
respect to which taxpayers and promot-
ers are not forthcoming about the content
or receipt of the promotional materials.
While the Treasury Department and the
IRS decline to provide a specific method
to rebut the presumption in these final

October 21, 2024 990 Bulletin No. 2024–43
regulations because such rebuttal would
necessarily be dependent on the taxpay-
er’s specific facts and circumstances, the
Treasury Department and the IRS expect
that, in appropriate cases, taxpayers will
be able to establish to the satisfaction of
the Commissioner that none of the promo-
tional materials contained a suggestion or
implication that investors might be allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
the amount of which equals or exceeds an
amount that is two and one-half times the
amount of their investment in the pass-
through entity. For example, a taxpayer
may be able to rebut the presumption
by establishing that the partnership was
not open to other investors (and thus the
only promotional materials were docu-
ments needed to execute the transaction)
or that similar properties in the same area
had increased significantly in value in
the period between the time the taxpayer
invested in the partnership and the date the
conservation easement was contributed.
Contrary to commenters’ assertions,
nothing in the proposed regulations sug-
gested that the Commissioner will disre-
gard evidence rebutting the presumption.
Section 7803(a)(3)(D) and (J) of the Code
require the Commissioner to ensure that
employees of the IRS are familiar, and
act in accordance, with taxpayer rights,
including the right to challenge the posi-
tion of the IRS, the right to be heard, and
the right to a fair and just tax system. Fur-
thermore, the phrase “to the satisfaction
of the Commissioner” does not preclude
future judicial review, and the Commis-
sioner bears the burden of demonstrat-
ing that each of the other elements of the
listed transaction has been fulfilled and
may have the burden of production under
section 7491(c) of the Code in a court pro-
ceeding regarding the imposition of a pen-
alty, depending on the party against whom
it is asserted. In the view of the Treasury
Department and the IRS, evidence regard-
ing oral promotional materials generally
would not constitute inadmissible hear-
say because the oral promotional materi-
als would not be offered for the truth of
the matters asserted therein, but rather as
evidence of what was stated. See Fed. R.
Evid. 801(c)(2).
Some commenters asked whether the
rebuttable presumption implies that tax-
payers do not need to report if (1) at least
three years have passed between the tax-
payer’s investment in the pass-through
entity and the pass-through’s contribution
of a conservation easement or (2) if the
deduction amount is less than 2.5 times
the amount of an investor’s investment.
The rebuttable presumption does not carry
either of these implications.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have decided to retain the rebuttable pre-
sumption in the final regulations because
the administrative need for a rebuttable
presumption outweighs the concerns
raised by the commenters. Taxpayers and
promoters are the persons with access to
and knowledge of the promotional mate-
rials involved in their transactions. Tax-
payers should not be able to escape the
requirements of these final regulations
because their syndicators were effective
in masking their promises. Accordingly,
the final regulations retain the rebuttable
presumption rule.
3. Determining the amount of a
taxpayer’s investment in the pass-through
entity
The proposed regulations contained an
anti-stuffing rule providing that, for pur-
poses of determining whether a transac-
tion is a listed transaction, the amount of a
taxpayer’s investment in the pass-through
entity is limited to the portion of the tax-
payer’s investment that is attributable to
the portion of the real property on which
a conservation easement is placed and
that produces the charitable contribution
deduction.
A few commenters noted that the term
“investment” in proposed §1.6011-9(b)
(1) is not defined, while one commenter
stated that the anti-stuffing rule found in
proposed §1.6011-9(d)(3) provides the
taxpayer’s investment for purposes of the
2.5 times rule. Several commenters stated
that the anti-stuffing rule in the proposed
regulations is inconsistent with the rele-
vant basis rule in section 170(h)(7)(B),
and others suggested that the anti-stuffing
rule in the proposed regulations should
be replaced with the relevant basis rule in
section 170(h)(7)(B).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that the term “investment” is not
generally defined within the Code. How-
ever, the Treasury Department and the
IRS agree with the commenter stating that
the anti-stuffing rule found in proposed
§1.6011-9(d)(3) provides the taxpayer’s
investment for purposes of the 2.5 times
rule. Further, in response to comments that
relevant basis should also be permitted to
be used to determine investment, these
final regulations provide that a taxpayer
may determine the amount of their invest-
ment in the pass-through entity using one
of the methods provided in §1.6011-9(d)
(4), which identifies the anti-stuffing
method and, for contributions occurring
on or after December 30, 2022, adds the
relevant basis method in section 170(h)
(7)(B) as another method to determine the
amount of the taxpayer’s investment in
the pass-through entity. No other methods
may be used.
In response to commenters asserting
that relevant basis should replace the
anti-stuffing rule, the relevant basis com-
putations under section 170(h)(7) do not
apply to all transactions for which dis-
closure is required under these final reg-
ulations (such as to contributions before
the effective date of section 170(h)(7) in
taxable years for which the statute of lim-
itations is still open); thus, these final reg-
ulations retain the anti-stuffing method as
one method to determine investment for
purposes of the 2.5 times rule.
i. Anti-stuffing method
As mentioned before in part IV.B.3 of
this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions, several commenters
addressed the anti-stuffing rule found in
the proposed regulations, which these
final regulations rename the “anti-stuffing
method” to determine investment for pur-
poses of the 2.5 times rule. For example,
one commenter requested clarification on
how to determine the portion of the invest-
ment that is “attributable” to the real prop-
erty on which the conservation easement
is placed. Another commenter stated that
the proposed anti-stuffing rule may give
rise to constitutional challenges because
it requires the separation of investment
assets, creating more cost for investment
managers and for investors, which they
contended is a limitation on interstate
commerce, a power reserved only for the
legislative branch. One commenter opined
that the anti-stuffing rule will be impos-

Bulletin No. 2024–43 991 October 21, 2024
sible to apply in practice; the commenter
noted that the example of the anti-stuffing
rule in the proposed regulations involved
marketable securities with an identifiable
fair market value and questioned how to
apply the anti-stuffing rule if the pass-
through entity holds multiple pieces of
property. Another commenter stated that
the example in the proposed regulations
illustrating the anti-stuffing rule was
merely an example of the basis allocation
rules under section 755 of the Code and
that allocation rules under section 755 do
not require additional explanation.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
conclude that the anti-stuffing rule pro-
vides a reasonable method to determine the
taxpayer’s investment in the pass-through
entity by looking only to amounts attribut-
able to the property generating the charita-
ble contribution deduction. In response to
comments requesting additional guidance
on the determination of the amount of a
taxpayer’s investment, these final regu-
lations provide that, under the anti-stuff-
ing method, if an investor uses non-cash
assets to acquire its interest in the pass-
through entity, then the fair market value
of such assets, rather than their basis, is
the relevant measure. In particular, under
§1.6011-9(d)(4)(ii) of these final regula-
tions, the amount of a taxpayer’s invest-
ment in the pass-through entity is the por-
tion of the cash and fair market value of
the assets the taxpayer uses to acquire its
interest in the pass-through entity that is
attributable to the real property on which
a conservation easement is placed (or the
portion thereof, if an easement is placed
on a portion of the real property) and
that produces the charitable contribution
deduction described in §1.6011-9(b)(3).
The Treasury Department and the
IRS disagree that the anti-stuffing rule is
impossible to apply in practice. Syndi-
cated conservation easement transactions
often involve scenarios similar to the
example provided in the proposed regu-
lations, in which the pass-through entity
owns only cash and marketable securities
in addition to its real property. Moreover,
these regulations apply to transactions
in which the promotional materials offer
the possibility of charitable contribution
deductions, and thus the parties involved
will have necessarily considered the pos-
sible allocation of charitable contribution
deductions based on the taxpayer’s cost of
acquiring the interest in the pass-through
entity. Accordingly, in the view of the
Treasury Department and the IRS, it is not
unduly burdensome to require the parties
to determine the amount of the taxpayer’s
acquisition cost that is allocable to the
property giving rise to the charitable con-
tribution deduction that is being offered.
ii. Relevant basis method
The Treasury Department and the IRS
recognize that partnerships and S corpo-
rations that engage in syndicated conser-
vation easement transactions occurring
on or after December 30, 2022, will need
to calculate relevant basis for purposes of
section 170(f)(19), and, in addition, each
investor will need to calculate the amount
of the investor’s investment for purposes
of these listed transaction regulations. To
mitigate the burden of potentially dupli-
cative calculations, these final regulations
add an alternative method to determine the
amount of a taxpayer’s investment. These
final regulations provide that, for contri-
butions occurring on or after December
30, 2022, taxpayers may use their relevant
basis, as determined under section 170(h)
(7)(B) and the regulations thereunder, as
the amount of their investment for pur-
poses of §1.6011-9(b)(1).
4. Modification of the determination of
investment for qualified conservation
contributions protecting historic
structures
One commenter stated that the pro-
posed anti-stuffing rule did not adequately
consider the difference between qualified
conservation contributions protecting his-
toric structures and those protecting natu-
ral open space or settings. This commenter
stated that, because historic preservation
projects protect the historic character of
a building, they often require additional
investment for rehabilitation; however, the
proposed rule did not consider cash raised
for, and invested into, the preservation,
rehabilitation and maintenance of certified
historic structures in the calculation of the
investment. The commenter further stated
that the proposed regulations did not
account for additional monies that need to
be invested in a project after an easement
is placed to ensure that the conservation
purpose is protected in perpetuity. The
commenter stated that cash, if invested
in the real property, should be considered
part of the taxpayer’s investment in the
real property when applying the 2.5 times
rule.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
conclude that the commenter’s proposed
changes to the anti-stuffing method are not
warranted. In general, one key element in
determining whether a transaction consti-
tutes a syndicated conservation easement
listed transaction is the ratio of the amount
of the charitable contribution deduction
allocation that an investor is offered to
the amount the investor pays to obtain
that charitable contribution deduction
allocation. To that end, the anti-stuffing
method measures the amount of the tax-
payer’s cost of acquiring the interest in the
pass-through entity that is attributable to
the real property on which a conservation
easement is placed (or the portion thereof,
if an easement is placed on a portion of
the real property) and that gives rise to the
charitable contribution deduction. Char-
itable contribution deductions are based
on either the fair market value or adjusted
basis of the property that is contributed as
of the time of the contribution. See, e.g.,
section 170(e). Therefore, in the view of
the Treasury Department and the IRS, it is
inappropriate, in determining the amount
of a taxpayer’s investment, to look to the
amounts expended on the property after
the time of the charitable contribution.
In general, every taxpayer that con-
tributes a conservation easement will be
required to expend some amounts on the
property after the contribution, such as
for property taxes. However, amounts of
cash that are held for expenditures after
the date the conservation easement is
contributed, whether for property taxes,
repairs, or anything else related to the
property, are not as directly related to the
resultant charitable contribution deduc-
tion that a taxpayer claims as the expen-
ditures related to the property that precede
the conservation easement contribution.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
have concluded that it is appropriate
for the anti-stuffing method to maintain
its focus on the amounts invested in the
property giving rise to the deduction as of
the time of the charitable contribution. In

October 21, 2024 992 Bulletin No. 2024–43
addition, the Treasury Department and the
IRS have concluded that a rule that treats
certain cash holdings as attributable to the
real property if they are “earmarked” for
future expenditures related to the property
would be difficult to administer. Such a
rule would require factually intensive esti-
mations and projections about the amount
of future expenditures that would be nec-
essary to fulfill the purposes of the con-
servation easement (as opposed to merely
enhancing the value of the building). For
these reasons, the Treasury Department
and the IRS have concluded that the final
regulations should not adopt this com-
ment. Therefore, the final regulations
add a clarification to §1.6011-9(d)(4)(ii),
which states that assets retained to pay for
costs related to the operation and mainte-
nance of the real property on which the
conservation easement is placed, includ-
ing costs that may be incurred in future
years, are not attributable to the contrib-
uted real property.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
will continue to consider whether any
additional clarifications or modifications
to the anti-stuffing method or the alterna-
tive relevant basis method of determining
the amount of the taxpayer’s investment
in the pass-through entity would be ben-
eficial in the context of qualified conser-
vation contributions protecting historic
structures.
C. Timing rules
Comments addressed both the timing
of the pass-through entity’s acquisition of
the real property and whether holding the
real property for a period of time before
the contribution of the conservation ease-
ment is made should result in the transac-
tion being excluded from the listed trans-
action identified in these regulations.
1. Timing of the pass-through entity’s
acquisition of the real property
Proposed §1.6011-9(b)(2) provided
that one of the steps of a syndicated con-
servation easement is that the taxpayer
acquires an interest directly, or indirectly
through one or more tiers of pass-through
entities, in the pass-through entity that
owns real property (that is, becomes an
investor in the entity). A few commenters
asked whether this step is met with respect
to investors who acquire an interest in an
entity that does not hold real estate at the
time the interest in the pass-through entity
is acquired. One of these commenters
requested that the IRS clearly state if it
intends proposed §1.6011-9(b)(2) to be
met in the case of an investor who acquires
an interest in a pass-through entity that
subsequently acquires real estate or an
interest in a pass-through entity holding
real estate. The commenter also stated
that, if the real property is purchased after
the investor invests in the pass-through
entity, the transaction would fall outside of
the anti-stuffing rule and therefore would
be less likely to trigger the 2.5 times rule
(because the amount of the taxpayer’s
investment would never be reduced by the
anti-stuffing rule).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that the proposed regulations clearly
stated that the transaction falls within the
definition of a syndicated conservation
easement transaction “regardless of the
order” in which the steps occur; therefore,
the proposed regulations already encom-
passed the scenario in which a taxpayer
acquires an interest in the pass-through
entity before the pass-through entity
acquires the real property. However, for
additional clarity, these final regulations
make that point explicit in §1.6011-9(b)
(2).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
do not agree with the commenter that, if
the real property is purchased after the
investor invests in the pass-through entity,
the transaction falls outside of the reach
of the anti-stuffing method. The proposed
and final regulations specifically provide
that the order in which the four steps of
a syndicated conservation easement trans-
action occur is not relevant. In response
to this comment, an example in these
final regulations illustrates the applica-
tion of the anti-stuffing method if the
pass-through entity acquires the real prop-
erty after a taxpayer invests in the pass-
through entity.
2. Holding periods
The proposed regulations did not
contain any exceptions from the disclo-
sure requirements for property held on
a long-term basis. Several commenters
asked that the final regulations include
an exception for such transactions.
One commenter questioned why inves-
tors who have held interests in a pass-
through entity for over one year would
be required to report the syndicated con-
servation easement transaction because
such investors would not need to rely
on a tacked holding period to avoid the
limitations of section 170(e). One com-
menter contended that contributions of
land held for less than three years will
generally not be made. Several com-
menters observed that contributions with
a long-term holding period are excepted
from the disallowance rule of section
170(h)(7)(A) pursuant to section 170(h)
(7)(C). One commenter opined that a
hypothetical transaction in which the
promotional materials state that the prop-
erty will be worth more than 2.5 times
the taxpayer’s investment in ten years
should not give rise to a listed transac-
tion. This commenter asked that the final
regulations specify the amount of time
that must elapse between the purchase of
the property interest and the contribution
of the easement for a transaction to be
listed. Another commenter asked about a
taxpayer that inherited land that is then in
his possession for over twenty years and
decides to donate the land for the benefit
and protection of the environment.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
conclude that it is not necessary to modify
the proposed rules to provide an exception
for property that has been held for a period
of time. First, tax abuse in syndicated con-
servation easement transactions is not
limited to mismatches between an inves-
tor’s holding period in its interest in the
pass-through entity and the pass-through
entity’s holding period in the real property
on which the conservation easement is
placed. For example, even for transactions
in which investors may otherwise be eligi-
ble to claim a deduction of the fair market
value of the conservation easement, the
deduction is nonetheless abusive if the
easement is improperly overvalued.
Second, as discussed in part III.B. of
this Summary of Comments and Expla-
nation of Revisions, the exception to the
disallowance rule in section 170(h)(7) for
contributions outside of a three-year hold-
ing period does not necessitate a similar
exception in these final regulations, and

Bulletin No. 2024–43 993 October 21, 2024
these final regulations do not provide an
exception for syndicated conservation
easements that are described in section
170(h)(7)(C).
Third, notwithstanding the commonly
anticipated appreciation of real property
values over time, it is not the case that
property values always increase. The
period a property is held is one element of
a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the
property has been overvalued. Attempt-
ing to craft an exception based on a hold-
ing period would result in a rule that is
over-inclusive and/or under-inclusive,
depending on the specific facts. The pro-
posed hypotheticals for property held for
ten or twenty years seems unlikely to meet
all elements of the listed transaction iden-
tified in these regulations (for example, it
might not be held in a pass-through entity
or involve promotional materials). There-
fore, the final regulations do not include
an exception for long-term holding peri-
ods.
D. Definitions
Commenters addressed the definitions
of (1) charitable contribution deduction,
(2) conservation easement, (3) participant,
(4) promotional materials, and (5) syndi-
cated conservation easement transaction.
1. Charitable contribution deduction
The proposed regulations defined
“charitable contribution deduction” as “a
deduction under section 170 of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code (Code), which includes
a deduction arising from a qualified con-
servation contribution as defined in sec-
tion 170(h)(1).”
One commenter stated that this defini-
tion is inconsistent with the listed trans-
action identified in the proposed regula-
tions, which is limited to contributions of
conservation easements. This commenter
suggested that the definition should be
limited to “the deduction arising from
a qualified conservation contribution as
defined in section 170(h)(1).”
The Treasury Department and the IRS
decline to adopt this suggestion, because
some substantially similar transactions
will involve real property contributions
other than qualified conservation contri-
butions.
2. Conservation easement
The proposed regulations defined a
“conservation easement” as “a restric-
tion, within the meaning of section
170(h)(2)(C), exclusively for conserva-
tion purposes, within the meaning of sec-
tion 170(h)(1)(C) and section 170(h)(4),
granted in perpetuity, on the use that may
be made of the specified property.” One
commenter stated that, in all cases that
the commenter defended, the IRS had
taken the position that the conservation
easement did not meet one or more of the
requirements in this definition. The com-
menter opined that, if an investor fails
to disclose a syndicated conservation
easement transaction, the pass-through’s
return is selected for audit, and the IRS
determines that the donated conservation
easement fails to meet one or more ele-
ments of the definition in the proposed
regulations, then the investor would
not have had any reporting obligation
because the investor had not claimed a
deduction for a “conservation easement”
as that term was defined in the proposed
regulations. The commenter added that
if this was not the intent of the proposed
regulation, then the final regulation
should clearly so state.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
note that the third element of the listed
transaction identified in these regulations
is that “the pass-through entity that owns
the real property contributes an easement
on such real property, which it treats as a
conservation easement, to a qualified orga-
nization and allocates, directly or through
one or more tiers of pass-through entities,
a charitable contribution deduction to the
taxpayer” (emphasis added), and that the
fourth element of the listed transaction
is that “the taxpayer claims a charitable
contribution deduction with respect to
the contribution of the real property inter-
est on the taxpayer’s Federal income tax
return.” In the commenter’s hypothetical,
the taxpayer’s treatment of the contribu-
tion as a conservation easement and claim
of a charitable contribution deduction
with respect to the conservation easement
makes the transaction a listed transaction.
Whether the IRS asserts that the conserva-
tion easement is invalid and whether the
charitable contribution deduction claimed
on the taxpayer’s Federal income tax
return is ultimately allowed do not affect
this outcome.
To more clearly track the language in
section 170(h), the final regulations mod-
ify the definition of conservation easement
to provide that it is a restriction (granted in
perpetuity) on the use that may be made
of the real property, within the meaning of
section 170(h)(2)(C), exclusively for con-
servation purposes, within the meaning of
section 170(h)(1)(C) and (h)(4).
3. Participant
The proposed regulations stated that a
taxpayer participating, within the mean-
ing of §1.6011-4(c)(3)(i)(A), in a syn-
dicated conservation easement transac-
tion described in proposed §1.6011-9(b)
includes (1) an owner of a pass-through
entity, (2) a pass-through entity (any tier,
if multiple tiers are involved in the trans-
action), and (3) any other taxpayer whose
tax return reflects tax consequences or
a tax strategy arising from the syndi-
cated conservation easement transaction
described in the proposed regulations. The
proposed regulations provided, consis-
tent with Notice 2017-10, that a qualified
organization to which a syndicated con-
servation easement described in proposed
§1.6011-9(b) is donated is not treated as
a participant under §1.6011-4(c)(3)(i)(A)
with respect to the listed transaction.
One commenter stated that it is unclear
whether a participant who reports the
tax consequences of a transaction that is
substantially similar to a syndicated con-
servation easement transaction is a mem-
ber of the class of participants described
under proposed §1.6011-9(e)(2). The
commenter opined that the plain language
of the proposed regulation referred only to
taxpayers who have the tax consequences
of a syndicated conservation easement
transaction. To address this comment, the
final regulations clarify that the class of
participants includes participants in trans-
actions that are the same as, or substan-
tially similar to, syndicated conservation
easement transactions.
One commenter requested additional
guidance on the meaning of the term “aris-
ing from” in proposed §1.6011-9(e)(2)
(iii), stating that it is ambiguous whether
an IRS attorney that was hired to enforce
syndicated conservation easement trans-

October 21, 2024 994 Bulletin No. 2024–43
actions would be required to report the
transaction because his or her income
“arose from” the conservation easement
transaction. The Treasury Department and
the IRS conclude that further clarification
is not needed.
4. Promotional materials
The proposed regulations stated that
“promotional materials” include materi-
als described in §301.6112-1(b)(3)(iii)(B)
and any other written or oral communi-
cation regarding the transaction provided
to investors, such as marketing materials,
appraisals (including preliminary apprais-
als, draft appraisals, and the appraisal
that is attached to the taxpayer’s return),
websites, transactional documents such
as the deed of conveyance, private place-
ment memoranda, tax opinions, operat-
ing agreements, subscription agreements,
statements of the anticipated value of the
conservation easement, and statements of
the anticipated amount of the charitable
contribution deduction.
One commenter supported this defini-
tion, but several commenters thought it
was overbroad, stating that it would be
effectively impossible for a taxpayer to
prove that he or she did not receive pro-
motional materials. Some commenters
objected to particular types of commu-
nication being included within the scope
of promotional materials. Specifically,
commenters expressed concern regard-
ing oral communications, websites, and
documents required by law. For example,
one commenter stated that, since promo-
tional materials are described to include
“websites” and “oral communication,”
every taxpayer would theoretically have
received “promotional materials” relat-
ing to conservation easement donations
because every taxpayer has access to
the internet. In addition, one commenter
stated that, under the proposed regu-
lations, promotional materials would
include an oral communication made to
any other investor. The commenter also
stated that any one oral communication,
regardless of accuracy, would “render the
deduction unavailable” to all investors.
The commenter recommended that the
final regulations remove all references to
oral communications.
In response, the Treasury Department
and the IRS note that receipt of promo-
tional materials by one investor does not
automatically trigger receipt of such mate-
rials by other investors (although it is cir-
cumstantial evidence that may be relevant
to showing receipt of promotional mate-
rials by other investors). In addition, the
broad definition of promotional materials
does not mean that the 2.5 times rule will
always be met; the quantity of promo-
tional materials is not directly relevant to
whether the promotional materials offer
the investor the possibility of being allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
that equals or exceeds an amount that is
two and one-half times the amount of the
taxpayer’s investment in the pass-through
entity. Moreover, even if the 2.5 times
rule is met, the effect is not to render the
deduction unavailable to all investors but
to meet one element of this listed trans-
action. The Treasury Department and the
IRS conclude that a broad definition of
promotional materials is warranted; other-
wise, taxpayers may contend that they do
not meet the elements of the listed trans-
action identified in these final regulations
because promoters made offers via oral
communications, websites, or other doc-
uments.
Some commenters noted that Congress
did not mention promotional materials in
section 170(h)(7) and asked that the final
regulations explain the requirement’s sig-
nificance in the listed transaction. The
Treasury Department and the IRS con-
clude that the lack of reference to pro-
motional materials in section 170(h)(7)
is of no significance to this listed trans-
action, given that the purpose and scope
of section 170(h)(7), which is to disallow
a deduction, are different from those of
these regulations, which is for the IRS to
identify tax avoidance transactions.
One commenter noted that a tax-
payer can claim a greatly inflated deduc-
tion regardless of whether the taxpayer
receives promotional materials and stated
that the promotional material require-
ment appears to be unnecessary and
could be removed altogether. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS have deter-
mined that promotional materials are an
important attribute of the listed transac-
tion identified in these final regulations
because the existence of promotional
materials offering investors the possibil-
ity of a charitable contribution deduction
that equals or exceeds an amount that is
2.5 times the amount of the taxpayer’s
investment, on its own, is an element
that illustrates tax avoidance. Thus, the
final regulations adopt the proposed defi-
nition of promotional materials without
changes.
One commenter stated that the broad
definition of promotional materials does
not promote compliance with the law
if an attorney that created promotional
materials, such as the deed of convey-
ance, is considered a material advisor to
the transaction. This commenter asked
for clarity on how the definition of pro-
motional materials in the proposed regu-
lations relates to the definition of a mate-
rial advisor.
As discussed in part I.D. of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, these final regulations do not
change the description of a material advi-
sor provided in §301.6111-3(b). A mate-
rial advisor is a person who makes a tax
statement, as defined in §1.6111-3(b)(2)
(ii), and derives gross income in excess
of the threshold amount, as defined in
§301.6111-3(b)(3) (generally, $10,000
for listed transactions). In general, a
deed of conveyance would not be a “tax
statement” under §301.6111-3(b)(2)(ii)
because it is not a statement “that relates
to a tax aspect of a transaction that causes
the transaction to be a reportable trans-
action.” In addition, in general, the deed
does not contain any statements related to
a tax aspect of the transaction that causes
the transaction to be reportable, such as
stating that an investor may be eligible
to claim a deduction amount of 2.5 times
the investor’s investment.
1
As a result, the
final regulations make no modifications to
the definition of promotional materials in
response to the comment.
1
As noted above, a transactional document such as a deed of conveyance is considered to be a promotional material. Although the deed by itself, typically, would not offer the investor the
possibility of being allocated a charitable contribution deduction that equals or exceeds an amount that is two and one-half times the amount of the taxpayer’s investment in the pass-through
entity, whether all of the promotional materials, taken as a whole, make such an offer is a factual determination.

Bulletin No. 2024–43 995 October 21, 2024
5. Syndicated conservation easement
transaction
One commenter stated that “syndica-
tion itself is not bad and is often encour-
aged by the government” (such as in the
context of historic tax credits, low-income
housing tax credits, and new market tax
credits). The commenter opined that
the proposed regulations sow confusion
because the focus should be on abuse, not
on syndication.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
agree with the commenter that syndica-
tion in itself is not necessarily abusive.
However, the Treasury Department and
the IRS do not agree with the commenter
that the definition of syndicated conser-
vation easement transaction in §1.6011-
9(b) needs to explicitly use the word
“abusive.” The identification of a listed
transaction occurs only after the Treasury
Department and the IRS have determined
that the transaction is a tax avoidance
transaction. If a syndicated conservation
easement transaction does not meet the
elements of the transaction defined in
§1.6011-9(b), such as that the partner-
ship’s promotional materials do not offer
investors the possibility of being allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
the amount of which equals or exceeds
an amount that is 2.5 times the amount
of the taxpayer’s investment in the part-
nership (and the partnership does not in
fact allocate a charitable contribution
deduction the amount of which equals or
exceeds an amount that is 2.5 times the
amount of the taxpayer’s investment in
the partnership), then the transaction is
not a listed transaction.
V. Comments Addressing the Role of
Qualified Organizations in the Listed
Transaction
Commenters addressed both the sec-
tion 4965 carveout found in the proposed
regulations and the lack of a carveout to
the definition of material advisor in the
proposed regulations for qualified organi-
zations.
A. Section 4965 carveout
The proposed regulations included,
consistent with Notice 2017-10, the sec-
tion 4965 carveout to exclude a qualified
organization
2
from treatment as a party to
a syndicated conservation easement trans-
action under section 4965 but requested
comments on whether the final regulations
should eliminate or limit the section 4965
carveout.
Several commenters advocated for
maintaining the section 4965 carveout
for various reasons, including that section
170(h)(7)(A) will disallow deductions for
most transactions that these regulations
seek to deter, that receipt of a donated
conservation easement generally would
not constitute “net income” or “proceeds”
within the meaning of section 4965, and
that limiting or eliminating the section
4965 carveout could discourage qualified
organizations from accepting contributions
of conservation easements (particularly
due to uncertainty as to what constitutes a
“substantially similar” transaction). With
respect to the Treasury Department and
the IRS’s request for comments on limit-
ing the carveout to qualified organizations
that conduct an adequate amount of due
diligence (and on what would constitute
adequate due diligence for this purpose),
several commenters argued that qualified
organizations are not equipped to exercise
the due diligence that could be required to
qualify for a more limited carveout. Sev-
eral commenters also claimed that because
only a “small number” of qualified orga-
nizations continue to facilitate syndicated
conservation easement transactions, it
would be unfairly burdensome to all other
qualified organizations if the section 4965
carveout were limited or eliminated.
Given the addition of section 170(h)(7)
to the Code, which disallows charitable
contribution deductions for some of the
most overvalued syndicated conservation
easements, as well as other considerations
raised by the commenters, the Treasury
Department and the IRS have concluded
that it is appropriate to maintain the sec-
tion 4965 carveout in these final regula-
tions. However, the Treasury Department
and the IRS will consider proposing to
eliminate or limit the section 4965 carve-
out in future regulations if qualified orga-
nizations continue to facilitate the syndi-
cated conservation easement transactions
(or substantially similar transactions)
described in these regulations.
B. Donee material advisors
As discussed in part I.D. of this Sum-
mary of Comments and Explanation of
Revisions, the proposed regulations pro-
vided no special rules for material advi-
sors and noted that this differed from the
approach taken in Notice 2017-29 (mod-
ifying Notice 2017-10), which provided
that a donee described in section 170(c)
is not treated as a material advisor under
section 6111. The proposed regulations
requested comments on whether qualified
organizations are receiving fees for pro-
viding material aid, assistance, or advice
with respect to the syndicated conserva-
tion easement transactions described in
the proposed regulations, the nature of the
services being provided, and why a carve-
out from the definition of material advisor
for qualified organizations is needed.
Several commenters requested that the
carveout for qualified organizations found
in Notice 2017-29 be reinstated, claiming
that the six-year look back period would
be burdensome, that the IRS is already
privy to information necessary to identify
potentially abusive syndicated conserva-
tion easement transactions via reporting
by other material advisors, and that elim-
inating the carveout for qualified organi-
zations will discourage qualified organiza-
tions from accepting legitimate syndicated
conservation easements due to confusion
and fear of audits, potential penalties, and
litigation. On the other hand, no com-
menter explained how a qualified orga-
nization, acting solely in its capacity as a
qualified organization, could be consid-
ered a material advisor. To the contrary,
several commenters asserted that donee
organizations do not fit the definition of
“material advisor.”
2
A donation of a qualified conservation contribution must be made to a “qualified organization,” generally defined in section 170(h)(3), which includes donations to governmental units,
certain public charities, and Type I supporting organizations thereto. Under section 4965(c), the term “tax-exempt entity” includes, among others, entities and governmental units described
in sections 501(c) and 170(c) (other than the United States). Thus, absent the section 4965 carveout, tax-exempt entities that would be affected are donees that are qualified organizations
described in section 170(h)(3), other than the United States, that accept a conservation easement as part of the syndicated conservation easement transaction described in these regulations.

October 21, 2024 996 Bulletin No. 2024–43
A person is a material advisor with
respect to a transaction if the person: (1) pro-
vides material aid, assistance, or advice with
respect to organizing, managing, promot-
ing, selling, implementing, insuring, or car-
rying out any reportable transaction; and (2)
directly or indirectly derives gross income
in excess of the threshold amount defined
in §301.6011-3(b)(3) for the material aid,
assistance, or advice. See §301.6111-3(b)
(1). “Gross income” includes all fees for a
tax strategy, for services for advice (whether
or not tax advice), and for the implementa-
tion of a reportable transaction, but a “fee”
does not include amounts paid to a per-
son, including an advisor, in that person’s
capacity as a party to the transaction. See
§301.6111-3(b)(3)(ii). A person provides
material aid, assistance, or advice if the per-
son makes or provides a tax statement to or
for the benefit of certain taxpayers who are
required to make a disclosure under section
6011 (including for participation in a listed
transaction) or other material advisors. See
§301.6111-3(b)(2)(i). “Tax statement,” for
these purposes, is any statement (including
another person’s statement), oral or written,
that relates to a tax aspect of a transaction
that causes the transaction to be a reportable
transaction. See §301.6111-3(b)(2)(ii)(A).
In a typical conservation easement
transaction, the qualified organization
signs the Form 8283 (Section B) and pro-
vides a contemporaneous written acknowl-
edgement of the contribution. See section
170(f)(8). The qualified organization may
also receive separate cash contributions
from the donor to monitor and enforce
the easement in perpetuity. The qualified
organization might also make represen-
tations to the donor that it is a qualified
organization. Signing the Form 8283 and
the contemporaneous written acknowl-
edgement and making representations
regarding the donee’s status as a qualified
organization are not considered to be mak-
ing a tax statement under §301.6111-3(b)
(2)(ii)(A). Therefore, a donee does not
provide material, aid, assistance, or advice
under §301.6111-3 merely by signing the
Form 8283 (Section B) and the contempo-
raneous written acknowledgement.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
conclude that a qualified organization
acting solely in its capacity as a qualified
organization by, for example, accepting a
conservation easement and separate pay-
ments or contributions to monitor and
enforce that easement, provided such pay-
ments or contributions are in fact used for
such purpose, would not be considered a
material advisor. The Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS further conclude that if
a qualified organization engages in activ-
ities that would result in the organization
meeting the requirements to be considered
a material advisor, then such organization
should be subject to the material advisor
rules, including the penalties for failure
to disclose. Thus, the final regulations
include no special carveout to material
advisor status for qualified organizations.
Effect on Other Documents
Notice 2017-10 is obsoleted for trans-
actions occurring after October 8, 2024.
Special Analyses
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information con-
tained in these final regulations is reflected
in the collection of information for Forms
8886 and 8918 that have been reviewed
and approved by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB) in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3507(c)) under control numbers
1545-1800 and 1545-0865.
To the extent there is a change in bur-
den as a result of these final regulations,
the change in burden will be reflected in
the updated burden estimates for the Forms
8886 and 8918. The requirement to maintain
records to substantiate information on Forms
8886 and 8918 is already contained in the
burden associated with the control number
for the forms and remains unchanged.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a valid
OMB control number.
II. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. chapter 6) requires agencies to “pre-
pare and make available for public comment
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis,”
which will “describe the impact of the rule
on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Section
605(b) of the RFA allows an agency to cer-
tify a rule if the rulemaking is not expected
to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Secretary of the Treasury hereby cer-
tifies that these final regulations will not have
a significant economic impact on a substan-
tial number of small entities pursuant to the
RFA. As previously explained, the basis for
these final regulations is Notice 2017-10,
2017-4 I.R.B. 544 (modified by Notice 2017-
29, 2017-20 I.R.B. 1243, and Notice 2017-
58, 2017-42 I.R.B. 326). The following chart
sets forth the gross receipts of respondents
to Notice 2017-10 that report Federal tax
information using Form 1065, U.S. Return of
Partnership Income, and Form 1120-S, U.S.
Income Tax Return for an S corporation:
Notice 2017-10
All Filings 2017 to 2021
Respondents by Size
ReceiptsRespondentsFilings
Under 5M93.3%88.3%
5M to 10M3.1%5.2%
10M to 15M1.2%2.9%
15M to 20M0.6%0.4%
20M to 25M0.6%0.7%
Over 25M1.2%2.5%

Bulletin No. 2024–43 997 October 21, 2024
This chart shows that the majority of
respondents to Notice 2017-10 reported
gross receipts under $5 million. Even
assuming that these respondents consti-
tute a substantial number of small enti-
ties, the final regulations will not have
a significant economic impact on these
entities because the final regulations
implement sections 6111 and 6112 and
§1.6011-4 by specifying the manner in
which and time at which an identified
transaction must be reported. Accord-
ingly, because the final regulations are
limited in scope to time and manner of
information reporting and definitional
information, the economic impact of the
final regulations is expected to be min-
imal. Further, the Treasury Department
and the IRS expect the reporting burden to
be low; the information sought is neces-
sary for regular annual return preparation
and ordinary recordkeeping. The esti-
mated burden for any taxpayer required
to file Form 8886 is approximately 10
hours, 16 minutes for recordkeeping, 4
hours, 50 minutes for learning about the
law or the form, and 6 hours, 25 minutes
for preparing, copying, assembling, and
sending the form to the IRS. The IRS’s
Research, Applied Analytics, and Statis-
tics division estimates that the appropri-
ate wage rate for this set of taxpayers is
$102.08 (2022 dollars) per hour. Thus, it
is estimated that a respondent will incur
costs of approximately $2,127.00 per
filing. Disclosures received to date by
the Treasury Department and the IRS in
response to the reporting requirements of
Notice 2017-10 indicate that this small
amount will not pose any significant eco-
nomic impact for those taxpayers now
required to disclose under the final reg-
ulations.
Some commenters asserted that the
hourly rate estimate of $98.87 (2021) in
the proposed regulations is much lower
than what professionals charge to prepare
Form 8886. Given the availability of more
recent data, the hourly rate estimate is
revised in the final regulations to $102.08
(2022). The new number still does not
address the substantial differences from
the commenters’ estimates. The differ-
ences are likely attributable to the differ-
ent methodologies used. The comment-
ers likely used the hourly rate that an
independent professional would charge a
retail customer to prepare a Form 8886.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
used the hourly cost that a business owner
would pay to employ such a professional.
This method was determined based on
the comments received from stakeholders
objecting to reporting of the retail hourly
rate at earlier points.
One commenter asked for the data
source for the hourly rate estimate. The
source data used by our data unit comes
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Some commenters asserted that the
estimate of the time to prepare Form
8886 is too low as provided because (1)
the estimate ignores the time necessary
to comply with the reporting requirement
for the years to which the requirement
applies retroactively and (2) the estimate
does not properly account for some of the
time spent, such as learning new topics. At
this time, the Treasury Department and the
IRS did not find a practical way to adjust
the time estimate in response to these
comments due to (1) the uncertainties
involved and (2) with respect to the prior
years, the effect of revealing our underre-
porting estimates on enforcement.
For the reasons stated, a regulatory
flexibility analysis under the RFA is not
required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of
the Code, the proposed rule preceding this
rulemaking was submitted to the Chief
Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for com-
ment on its impact on small business, and
no comments were received.
III. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
that agencies assess anticipated costs and
benefits and take certain other actions
before issuing a final rule that includes
any Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures in any one year by a State,
local, or Tribal government, in the aggre-
gate, or by the private sector, of $100
million (updated annually for inflation).
One commenter argued that it is at least
possible that the UMRA trigger of $100
million could be triggered because of the
potential burdens of updating State or
local regulations concerning the accep-
tance of land donations, harmonizing
information reporting with the require-
ments of the regulations, and cooperation
with examination proceedings. The Trea-
sury Department and the IRS have consid-
ered this comment and conclude that it is
not persuasive, particularly in light of the
continuing carve-out for donees in these
final regulations. This final rule does not
include any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures by State, local, or
Tribal governments, or by the private sec-
tor in excess of that threshold.
IV. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
prohibits an agency from publishing any
rule that has federalism implications if
the rule either imposes substantial, direct
compliance costs on State and local gov-
ernments, and is not required by statute,
or preempts State law, unless the agency
meets the consultation and funding
requirements of section 6 of the Exec-
utive order. One commenter suggested
that, if the Treasury Department and the
IRS decide to eliminate the carveout for
donees described in section 170(c) from
being treated as a party to the transaction
under section 4965, then the final regu-
lations will have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. The final
regulations maintain the section 4965 car-
veout. This final rule does not have fed-
eralism implications and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments or preempt
State law within the meaning of the Exec-
utive order.
V. Regulatory Planning and Review
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agree-
ment, Review of Treasury Regulations
under Executive Order 12866 (June 9,
2023), tax regulatory actions issued by the
IRS are not subject to the requirements of
section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended. Therefore, a regulatory impact
assessment is not required.
VI. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs des-
ignated this rule as not a major rule, as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

October 21, 2024 998 Bulletin No. 2024–43
Statement of Availability of IRS
Documents
Guidance cited in this preamble is pub-
lished in the Internal Revenue Bulletin
and is available from the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Publish-
ing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by
visiting the IRS website at https://www.
irs.gov.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these final reg-
ulations are Joshua S. Klaber and Eugene
Kirman, Office of Associate Chief Coun-
sel (Income Tax & Accounting). Other
personnel from the Treasury Department
and the IRS participated in their develop-
ment.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and record-
keeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended
as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 is amended by adding an entry
for §1.6011-9 in numerical order to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
* * * * *
Section 1.6011-9 also issued under 26
U.S.C. 6001 and 6011.
* * * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.6011-9 is added to
read as follows:
§1.6011-9 Syndicated conservation
easement listed transactions.
(a) Identification as listed transac-
tion. Transactions that are the same as,
or substantially similar to, a transaction
described in paragraph (b) of this section
are identified as listed transactions for
purposes of §1.6011-4(b)(2).
(b) Syndicated conservation easement
transaction. The term syndicated con-
servation easement transaction means a
transaction in which the following steps
occur (regardless of the order in which
they occur)--
(1) A taxpayer receives promotional
materials that offer investors in a pass-
through entity the possibility of being allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
the amount of which equals or exceeds an
amount that is two and one-half times the
amount of the taxpayer’s investment, as
determined in paragraph (d)(4) of this sec-
tion, in the pass-through entity, as deter-
mined under paragraph (d) of this section
(2.5 times rule);
(2) The taxpayer acquires an interest,
directly or indirectly through one or more
tiers of pass-through entities, in the pass-
through entity that owns or acquires real
property (that is, becomes an investor in
the entity);
(3) The pass-through entity that owns
the real property contributes an easement
on such real property, which it treats as a
conservation easement, to a qualified orga-
nization and allocates, directly or through
one or more tiers of pass-through entities,
a charitable contribution deduction to the
taxpayer; and
(4) The taxpayer claims a charitable
contribution deduction with respect to
the contribution of the real property inter-
est on the taxpayer’s Federal income tax
return.
(c) Definitions. The following defini-
tions apply for purposes of this section:
(1) Charitable contribution deduction.
The term charitable contribution deduc-
tion means a deduction under section 170
of the Internal Revenue Code (Code),
which includes a deduction arising from
a qualified conservation contribution as
defined in section 170(h)(1) of the Code.
(2) Conservation easement. The term
conservation easement means a restriction
(granted in perpetuity) on the use which
may be made of the real property, within
the meaning of section 170(h)(2)(C) of
the Code, exclusively for conservation
purposes, within the meaning of section
170(h)(1)(C) and (h)(4) of the Code.
(3) Pass-through entity. The term pass-
through entity means a partnership, S cor-
poration, or trust (other than a grantor
trust within the meaning of subchapter J
of chapter 1 of the Code).
(4) Promotional materials. The term
promotional materials includes materials
described in §301.6112-1(b)(3)(iii)(B) of
this chapter and any other written or oral
communication regarding the transaction
provided to investors, such as marketing
materials, appraisals (including prelim-
inary appraisals, draft appraisals, and
the appraisal that is attached to the tax-
payer’s return), websites, transactional
documents such as deeds of conveyance,
private placement memoranda, tax opin-
ions, operating agreements, subscription
agreements, statements of the anticipated
value of the conservation easement, and
statements of the anticipated amount of
the charitable contribution deduction.
(5) Qualified organization. The term
qualified organization means an organiza-
tion described in section 170(h)(3) of the
Code.
(6) Real property. The term real prop-
erty includes all land, structures, and
buildings, including a certified historic
structure defined in section 170(h)(4)(C)
of the Code.
(7) Substantially similar. The term sub-
stantially similar is defined in §1.6011-
4(c)(4). For example, transactions that
meet the elements of paragraph (b) of
this section, except that the pass-through
entity contributes a fee simple interest in
real property or a real property interest
described in section 170(h)(2)(A) or (B)
of the Code rather than a conservation
easement, are substantially similar to the
listed transaction identified in this section.
(d) Application of the 2.5 times rule—
(1) Bright-line rule. Transactions for
which the promotional materials offer
the taxpayer the possibility of being allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
of only an amount less than 2.5 times the
taxpayer’s investment and for which the
taxpayer is actually allocated a charitable
contribution deduction of an amount less
than 2.5 times the taxpayer’s investment
(so that the rebuttable presumption in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section does not
apply) are generally not considered sub-
stantially similar to the listed transaction
identified in this section. However, if a
pass-through entity engages in a series of
transactions with a principal purpose of
avoiding the application of the bright-line
rule in this paragraph (d)(1), the series of
transactions may be disregarded or the
arrangement may be recharacterized in
accordance with its substance. Whether a

Bulletin No. 2024–43 999 October 21, 2024
series of transactions has a principal pur-
pose of avoiding the application of this
bright-line rule is determined based on all
the facts and circumstances.
(2) Multiple suggested contribution
amounts. If the promotional materials
suggest or imply a range of possible char-
itable contribution deduction amounts
that may be allocated to the taxpayer, the
highest suggested or implied contribution
amount determines whether the 2.5 times
rule in this paragraph (d) is met. In addi-
tion, if one piece of promotional materials
(for example, an appraisal or oral state-
ment) states a higher charitable contribu-
tion deduction amount than stated by other
promotional materials, then the highest
stated charitable contribution deduction
amount determines whether the 2.5 times
rule is met.
(3) Rebuttable presumption. The 2.5
times rule in this paragraph (d) is deemed
to be met if the pass-through entity donates
a real property interest within three years
following the taxpayer’s investment in
the pass-through entity, the pass-through
entity allocates a charitable contribution
deduction to the taxpayer the amount of
which equals or exceeds two and one-half
times the amount of the taxpayer’s invest-
ment, and the taxpayer claims a charita-
ble contribution deduction the amount of
which equals or exceeds two and one-half
times the amount of the taxpayer’s invest-
ment. This presumption may be rebutted if
the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction
of the Commissioner that none of the pro-
motional materials contained a suggestion
or implication that investors might be allo-
cated a charitable contribution deduction
that equals or exceeds an amount that is
two and one-half times the amount of their
investment in the pass-through entity.
(4) Determining the amount of the tax-
payer’s investment in the pass-through
entity—(i) In general. A taxpayer may
determine the amount of the taxpayer’s
investment in the pass-through entity for
purposes of paragraph (b) of this section
using either the anti-stuffing method in
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section or, for
contributions made after December 29,
2022, the relevant basis method in para-
graph (d)(4)(iii) of this section. No other
methods may be used.
(ii) Anti-stuffing method. Under the
anti-stuffing method, the amount of a tax-
payer’s investment in the pass-through
entity is the portion of the cash or fair mar-
ket value of the assets the taxpayer uses
to acquire its interest in the pass-through
entity that is attributable to the real prop-
erty on which a conservation easement is
placed (or the portion thereof, if an ease-
ment is placed on a portion of the real
property) that gives rise to the charitable
contribution described in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section. For example, if a portion
of the taxpayer’s cost of acquiring the tax-
payer’s interest in the pass-through entity
is attributable to property held directly or
indirectly by the pass-through entity other
than the real property on which a conser-
vation easement is placed as described
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section (such
other property may include other real
property, cash, cash equivalents, digital
assets, marketable securities, or other tan-
gible or intangible assets), that portion of
the taxpayer’s acquisition cost is not con-
sidered part of the taxpayer’s investment
for purposes of this section because it is
not attributable to the portion of the real
property on which a conservation ease-
ment is placed as described in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. For purposes of this
paragraph (d)(4)(ii), assets retained to
pay for costs related to the operation and
maintenance of the real property on which
the conservation easement is placed,
including costs that may be incurred in
future years, are not attributable to the real
property on which a conservation ease-
ment is placed as described in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. In the case of a sub-
stantially similar transaction described in
paragraph (c)(7) of this section, the rules
in this paragraph (d)(4)(ii) apply except
that the relevant real property that gives
rise to the charitable contribution deduc-
tion described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section is the real property donated.
(iii) Relevant basis method. For con-
tributions made after December 29,
2022, taxpayers may use their relevant
basis, as determined in accordance with
section 170(h)(7)(B) of the Code and
§1.170A-14(k), as the amount of their
investment for purposes of paragraph (b)
of this section.
(5) Examples. For the examples in this
paragraph (d)(5), assume that the partner-
ships are respected for Federal tax pur-
poses, and that the partnership allocations
comply with the rules of subchapter K of
chapter 1 of the Code.
(i) Example 1--(A) Facts. Individual A purchased
an interest in P, a partnership that owns real property
with a fair market value of $500,000 and marketable
securities with a fair market value of $500,000. A is
one of four equal investors in P, each of whom pur-
chased its interest in P for $250,000 of cash. With
respect to an investor’s $250,000 payment for its
interest in P, the promotional materials stated that
P expected to allocate a $500,000 charitable con-
tribution deduction to the investor (that is, a char-
itable contribution deduction that is two times the
amount an investor paid for its interest in P). After
all four investors have purchased their interests in P,
P donates a conservation easement on all of its real
property to a qualified organization as defined in sec-
tion 170(h)(3) of the Code and reports a $2,000,000
charitable contribution on its Form 1065, U.S.
Return of Partnership Income, based on P obtaining
an appraisal indicating that the value of the conser-
vation easement is $2,000,000. The Schedule K-1
(Form 1065) that P furnishes to A indicates that P
allocated a charitable contribution deduction to A for
the taxable year. A claims a charitable contribution
deduction with respect to the charitable contribution
on A’s Federal income tax return.
(B) Analysis. A’s cost of acquiring its interest
in P is $250,000. The real property on which a con-
servation easement was placed and that gave rise
to the charitable contribution deduction described
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section was P’s property
valued at $500,000. P’s only other asset was mar-
ketable securities worth $500,000. Accordingly, half
of A’s share of the value of the assets held by P was
attributable to the real property on which P placed a
conservation easement and that gave rise to the char-
itable contribution deduction described in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. Therefore, under paragraph (d)
(4)(i) of this section, for purposes of paragraph (b)
of this section, the amount of A’s investment in P is
$125,000 (that is, half of A’s $250,000 acquisition
cost, which is the portion of A’s acquisition cost that
is attributable to the real property on which P placed
a conservation easement and that gave rise to the
charitable contribution deduction described in para-
graph (b)(3) of this section). Because A’s investment
for purposes of the 2.5 times rule is $125,000 and A’s
expected charitable contribution deduction, based
on the promotional materials, is $500,000 (that is,
an expected deduction that is four times A’s invest-
ment), the 2.5 times rule of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section is met. The transaction also meets the other
elements of a syndicated conservation easement
within the meaning of paragraph (b) of this section
and therefore is a listed transaction for purposes of
§1.6011-4(b)(2).
(ii) Example 2--(A) Facts. Individual B acquires
a ten percent interest in InvestCo, a partnership,
by making a $250,000 cash contribution. Immedi-
ately after B’s acquisition, InvestCo’s only asset is
$2,500,000 of cash. The promotional materials state
that InvestCo expects to allocate a $500,000 char-
itable contribution deduction to B with respect to
B’s partnership interest. InvestCo pays $600,000 to
purchase marketable securities. InvestCo also pur-
chases an interest in another partnership, PropCo,
for $1,900,000 from one of PropCo’s partners. At

October 21, 2024 1000 Bulletin No. 2024–43
the same time as the purchase, InvestCo also con-
tributes $100,000 of its marketable securities to
PropCo. Immediately after InvestCo’s purchase and
contribution, PropCo’s only assets are real property
worth $2,400,000 and the marketable securities
worth $100,000. PropCo donates its entire interest in
the real property (a fee simple interest) to a qualified
organization as defined in section 170(h)(3) of the
Code and reports a $6,250,000 charitable contribu-
tion on its Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership
Income, based on PropCo obtaining an appraisal
indicating that the value of the real property is
$6,250,000. PropCo allocates a portion of the chari-
table contribution deduction to InvestCo. The Sched-
ule K–1 (Form 1065) that InvestCo furnishes to B
indicates that InvestCo allocated a charitable contri-
bution deduction to B for the taxable year. B claims a
charitable contribution deduction with respect to the
contribution on B’s Federal income tax return.
(B) Analysis. Immediately after InvestCo’s
acquisition of its interest in PropCo, InvestCo’s only
assets were its interest in PropCo and $500,000 in
marketable securities. Accordingly, eighty percent
of InvestCo’s funds ($2,000,000 / $2,500,000) were
used to acquire its interest in PropCo. B’s investment
in InvestCo is $250,000; therefore, eighty percent of
that amount, $200,000, is attributable to InvestCo’s
interest in PropCo. Immediately after InvestCo’s
acquisition of its interest in PropCo, PropCo had
real property worth $2,400,000 and marketable secu-
rities worth $100,000. As such, ninety-six percent
($2,400,000 / $2,500,000) of PropCo’s assets were
the real property that was subsequently donated.
Therefore, under paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section,
for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, the
amount of B’s investment in InvestCo that is attribut-
able to the donated real property that gave rise to the
charitable contribution deduction described in para-
graph (b)(3) of this section is $200,000 multiplied by
ninety-six percent, or $192,000. Because B’s invest-
ment for purposes of the 2.5 times rule is $192,000
and B’s expected charitable contribution deduction,
based on the promotional materials, is $500,000 (that
is, an expected deduction that is at least 2.5 times
B’s investment), the 2.5 times rule of paragraph (b)
(1) of this section is met. The transaction also meets
the other elements of a syndicated conservation
easement within the meaning of paragraph (b) of this
section, except that PropCo contributed a fee simple
interest in real property rather than a conservation
easement. Under paragraph (c)(7) of this section,
the transaction is substantially similar to the listed
transaction described in paragraph (b) of this section
and, therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section,
the transaction in this example is a listed transaction
for purposes of §1.6011-4(b)(2).
(e) Participation in a syndicated con-
servation easement transaction--(1) In
general. Whether a taxpayer has partici-
pated in a syndicated conservation ease-
ment transaction described in paragraph
(b) of this section is determined under
§1.6011-4(c)(3)(i)(A).
(2) Class of participants. For purposes
of §1.6011-4(c)(3)(i)(A), participants in a
transaction that is the same as, or substan-
tially similar to, a syndicated conservation
easement transaction described in para-
graph (b) of this section include--
(i) An owner of a pass-through entity;
(ii) A pass-through entity; and
(iii) Any other taxpayer whose Fed-
eral income tax return reflects tax conse-
quences or a tax strategy arising from a
transaction that is the same as, or substan-
tially similar to, the transaction described
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Exclusion. A qualified organiza-
tion to which the conservation easement
is donated is not treated as a participant
under §1.6011-4(c)(3)(i)(A) in a syndi-
cated conservation easement transaction
described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(f) Application of section 4965. A qual-
ified organization to which the real prop-
erty interest is donated is not treated under
section 4965 of the Code as a party to the
transaction described in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(g) Disclosures under Notice 2017-10.
A taxpayer who disclosed their participa-
tion in a transaction pursuant to Notice
2017-10 and in accordance with §1.6011-4
before October 8, 2024, is treated as hav-
ing made the disclosure required under
this section and §1.6011-4, for the years
covered by that disclosure, as of the date
of the disclosure under Notice 2017-10.
(h) Applicability date--(1) In general.
This section’s identification of transac-
tions that are the same as, or substantially
similar to, the transactions described
in paragraph (b) of this section as listed
transactions for purposes of §1.6011-4(b)
(2) and sections 6111 and 6112 of the
Code is effective October 8, 2024.
(2) Applicability date for material
advisors. Notwithstanding §301.6111–
3(b)(4)(i) and (iii) of this chapter, material
advisors are required to disclose only if
they have made a tax statement on or after
October 8, 2018.
Douglas W. O’Donnell,
Deputy Commissioner.
Approved: September 16, 2024
Aviva R. Aron-Dine,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Trea-
sury (Tax Policy).
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register October
07, 2024, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the
Federal Register for October 08, 2024, 89 FR 81341)

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1001 October 21, 2024
Part III
Extension of Replacement
Period for Livestock Sold
on Account of Drought
Notice 2024-70
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This notice provides guidance regard-
ing an extension of the replacement period
under § 1033(e) of the Internal Revenue
Code for livestock sold on account of
drought in specified counties.
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
.01 Nonrecognition of Gain on Invol-
untary Conversion of Livestock. Section
1033(a) generally provides for nonrec-
ognition of gain when property is invol-
untarily converted and replaced with
property that is similar or related in ser-
vice or use. Section 1033(e)(1) provides
that a sale or exchange of livestock (other
than poultry) held by a taxpayer for draft,
breeding, or dairy purposes in excess of
the number that would be sold following
the taxpayer’s usual business practices is
treated as an involuntary conversion if the
livestock is sold or exchanged solely on
account of drought, flood, or other weath-
er-related conditions.
.02 Replacement Period. Section
1033(a)(2)(A) generally provides that
gain from an involuntary conversion is
recognized only to the extent the amount
realized on the conversion exceeds the
cost of replacement property purchased
during the replacement period. If a sale
or exchange of livestock is treated as an
involuntary conversion under § 1033(e)
(1) and is solely on account of drought,
flood, or other weather-related conditions
that result in the area being designated as
eligible for assistance by the federal gov-
ernment, § 1033(e)(2)(A) provides that the
replacement period ends four years after
the close of the first taxable year in which
any part of the gain from the conversion is
realized. Section 1033(e)(2)(B) provides
that the Secretary may extend this replace-
ment period on a regional basis for such
additional time as the Secretary deter-
mines appropriate if the weather-related
conditions that resulted in the area being
designated as eligible for assistance by
the federal government continue for more
than three years. Section 1033(e)(2) is
effective for any taxable year with respect
to which the due date (without regard to
extensions) for a taxpayer’s return is after
December 31, 2002.
SECTION 3. EXTENSION OF
REPLACEMENT PERIOD UNDER §
1033(e)(2)(B)
Notice 2006-82, 2006-2 C.B. 529,
provides for extensions of the replace-
ment period under § 1033(e)(2)(B). If a
sale or exchange of livestock is treated as
an involuntary conversion on account of
drought and the taxpayer’s replacement
period is determined under § 1033(e)
(2)(A), the replacement period will be
extended under § 1033(e)(2)(B) and
Notice 2006-82 until the end of the tax-
payer’s first taxable year ending after the
first drought-free year for the applicable
region. For this purpose, the first drought-
free year for the applicable region is the
first 12-month period that (1) ends August
31; (2) ends in or after the last year of the
taxpayer’s four-year replacement period
determined under § 1033(e)(2)(A); and
(3) does not include any weekly period
for which exceptional, extreme, or severe
drought is reported for any location in the
applicable region. The applicable region
is the county that experienced the drought
conditions on account of which the live-
stock was sold or exchanged and all coun-
ties that are contiguous to that county.
A taxpayer may determine whether
exceptional, extreme, or severe drought is
reported for any location in the applicable
region by reference to U.S. Drought Mon-
itor maps that are produced on a weekly
basis by the National Drought Mitigation
Center. U.S. Drought Monitor maps are
archived at https://droughtmonitor.unl.
edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx.
In addition, Notice 2006-82 provides
that the Internal Revenue Service will
publish in September of each year a list of
counties
1
for which exceptional, extreme,
or severe drought was reported during the
preceding 12 months. Taxpayers may use
this list instead of U.S. Drought Monitor
maps to determine whether exceptional,
extreme, or severe drought has been
reported for any location in the applicable
region.
The Appendix to this notice contains
the list of counties for which excep-
tional, extreme, or severe drought was
reported during the 12-month period
ending August 31, 2024. Under Notice
2006-82, the 12-month period ended on
August 31, 2024, is not a drought-free
year for an applicable region that includes
any county on this list. Accordingly, for
a taxpayer who qualified for a four-year
replacement period for livestock sold or
exchanged on account of drought and
whose replacement period is scheduled to
expire at the end of 2024 (or, in the case of
a fiscal year taxpayer, at the end of the tax-
able year that includes August 31, 2024),
the replacement period will be extended
under § 1033(e)(2) and Notice 2006-82 if
the applicable region includes any county
on this list. This extension will continue
until the end of the taxpayer’s first taxable
year ending after a drought-free year for
the applicable region.
SECTION 4. DRAFTING
INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is
Lewis Saideman of the Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Account-
ing). For further information regarding
this notice, please contact Mr. Saideman at
(202) 317-7009 (not a toll-free numbers).
1
While Notice 2006-82 uses the term “counties,” this notice lists other applicable regions as well (e.g., boroughs, parishes, etc.).

October 21, 2024 1002 Bulletin No. 2024–43
APPENDIX
Alabama
Counties of Autauga, Baldwin, Bar-
bour, Bibb, Blount, Bullock, Butler,
Calhoun, Cherokee, Chilton, Choctaw,
Clarke, Clay, Cleburne, Coffee, Colbert,
Conecuh, Coosa, Covington, Crenshaw,
Cullman, Dale, Dallas, DeKalb, Escam-
bia, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Geneva,
Greene, Hale, Henry, Houston, Jackson,
Jefferson, Lamar, Lauderdale, Lawrence,
Limestone, Lowndes, Madison, Marengo,
Marion, Marshall, Mobile, Monroe,
Montgomery, Morgan, Perry, Pickens,
Pike, Randolph, Russell, Saint Clair,
Shelby, Sumter, Talladega, Tallapoosa,
Tuscaloosa, Walker, Washington, Wilcox,
and Winston.
Arizona
Counties of Apache, Cochise, Coconino,
Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa,
Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and
Yavapai.
Arkansas
Counties of Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley,
Calhoun, Chicot, Cleveland, Colum-
bia, Conway, Crittenden, Cross, Dallas,
Desha, Drew, Faulkner, Fulton, Garland,
Grant, Hot Spring, Jefferson, Lafayette,
Lee, Lincoln, Little River, Lonoke,
Miller, Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita,
Perry, Phillips, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski,
Randolph, Saint Francis, Saline, Sevier,
Sharp, Union, White, Woodruff, and
Yell.
California
County of Siskiyou.
Colorado
Counties of Adams, Alamosa, Arapahoe,
Archuleta, Baca, Bent, Boulder, Broom-
field, Conejos, Costilla, Delta, Denver,
Dolores, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale,
Huerfano, Jackson, Jefferson, La Plata,
Larimer, Las Animas, Mesa, Mineral,
Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Prowers,
Rio Grande, Saguache, San Juan, San
Miguel, and Weld.
District of Columbia
District of Columbia.
Florida
Counties of Bay, Brevard, Broward,
Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Escambia,
Gadsden, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, High-
lands, Hillsborough, Holmes, Indian
River, Jackson, Lee, Manatee, Martin,
Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm
Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Saint
Lucie, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Walton, and
Washington.
Georgia
Counties of Baker, Baldwin, Banks,
Barrow, Bartow, Bibb, Bleckley, Butts,
Calhoun, Carroll, Catoosa, Chattooga,
Cherokee, Clarke, Clay, Cobb, Colquitt,
Dade, Dawson, Decatur, DeKalb,
Dooly, Dougherty, Douglas, Early,
Elbert, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Frank-
lin, Fulton, Gilmer, Gordon, Grady,
Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Haralson,
Hart, Houston, Jackson, Jasper, Jones,
Laurens, Lincoln, Lumpkin, Macon,
Madison, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe,
Murray, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Paulding,
Peach, Pickens, Polk, Pulaski, Putnam,
Quitman, Rabun, Randolph, Seminole,
Stephens, Stewart, Terrell, Thomas,
Towns, Twiggs, Union, Walker, Walton,
Washington, White, Whitfield, Wilkes,
Wilkinson, and Worth.
Hawaii
Counties of Hawaii, Honolulu, Kauai, and
Maui.
Idaho
Counties of Benewah, Bonner, Bonne-
ville, Boundary, Clark, Clearwater, Fre-
mont, Idaho, Kootenai, Latah, Lemhi,
Lewis, Nez Perce, Shoshone, and Teton.
Illinois
Counties of Adams, Bond, Boone, Brown,
Clark, Clay, Clinton, Crawford, Cum-
berland, Edwards, Effingham, Fayette,
Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Jackson,
Jasper, Jefferson, Lawrence, McDonough,
McHenry, Marion, Mercer, Monroe,
Montgomery, Perry, Pike, Randolph,
Richland, Rock Island, Saint Clair, Schuy-
ler, Shelby, Stephenson, Wabash, Wash-
ington, Wayne, White, Williamson, and
Winnebago.
Indiana
Counties of Bartholomew, Brown, Clay,
Daviess, Decatur, Dubois, Gibson, Greene,
Jackson, Jefferson, Jennings, Knox, Law-
rence, Martin, Monroe, Orange, Owen,
Pike, Ripley, Scott, Sullivan, and Wash-
ington.
Iowa
Counties of Adair, Adams, Allamakee,
Appanoose, Audubon, Benton, Black
Hawk, Boone, Bremer, Buchanan,
Buena Vista, Butler, Calhoun, Carroll,
Cass, Cedar, Cerro Gordo, Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Clarke, Clay, Clayton, Clin-
ton, Crawford, Dallas, Davis, Decatur,
Delaware, Des Moines, Dubuque, Fay-
ette, Floyd, Franklin, Greene, Grundy,
Guthrie, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardin,
Harrison, Henry, Howard, Humboldt,
Ida, Iowa, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson,
Johnson, Jones, Keokuk, Kossuth, Lee,
Linn, Louisa, Lucas, Lyon, Madison,
Mahaska, Marion, Marshall, Mills,
Mitchell, Monona, Monroe, Montgom-
ery, Muscatine, Page, Palo Alto, Plym-
outh, Pocahontas, Polk, Pottawattamie,
Poweshiek, Ringgold, Sac, Shelby,
Sioux, Story, Tama, Taylor, Union, Van
Buren, Wapello, Warren, Washington,
Wayne, Webster, Winnebago, Winnesh-
iek, Woodbury, Worth, and Wright.
Kansas
Counties of Allen, Anderson, Atchison,
Barber, Barton, Bourbon, Butler, Chase,
Chautauqua, Clark, Clay, Cloud, Coffey,
Comanche, Cowley, Crawford, Decatur,
Dickinson, Douglas, Edwards, Elk, Ellis,
Ellsworth, Finney, Ford, Franklin, Geary,
Gove, Graham, Grant, Gray, Greeley,
Greenwood, Hamilton, Harper, Harvey,
Haskell, Hodgeman, Jackson, Jeffer-
son, Jewell, Johnson, Kearny, Kingman,
Kiowa, Labette, Lane, Leavenworth, Lin-
coln, Linn, Lyon, McPherson, Marion,
Marshall, Meade, Miami, Mitchell, Mont-

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1003 October 21, 2024
gomery, Morris, Morton, Neosho, Ness,
Norton, Osage, Osborne, Ottawa, Pawnee,
Phillips, Pottawatomie, Pratt, Rawlins,
Reno, Republic, Rice, Riley, Rooks, Rush,
Russell, Saline, Scott, Sedgwick, Seward,
Shawnee, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Staf-
ford, Stanton, Stevens, Sumner, Thomas,
Trego, Wabaunsee, Washington, Wilson,
Woodson, and Wyandotte.
Kentucky
Counties of Adair, Allen, Barren, Bell,
Boyd, Boyle, Breathitt, Breckinridge,
Butler, Carter, Casey, Clay, Clinton,
Cumberland, Edmonson, Elliott, Floyd,
Grayson, Green, Greenup, Hardin, Har-
lan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox,
Larue, Laurel, Lawrence, Leslie, Letcher,
Lincoln, McCreary, Magoffin, Marion,
Martin, Metcalfe, Monroe, Morgan, Nel-
son, Ohio, Owsley, Perry, Pulaski, Rock-
castle, Russell, Taylor, Warren, Wayne,
and Whitley.
Louisiana
Parishes of Acadia, Allen, Ascension,
Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard,
Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Calcasieu,
Caldwell, Cameron, Catahoula, Clai-
borne, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton
Rouge, East Carroll, East Feliciana,
Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Iberia, Iber-
ville, Jackson, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis,
Lafayette, Lafourche, La Salle, Lincoln,
Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchi-
toches, Orleans, Ouachita, Plaquemines,
Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Red River, Rich-
land, Sabine, Saint Bernard, Saint Charles,
Saint Helena, Saint James, Saint John the
Baptist, Saint Landry, Saint Martin, Saint
Mary, Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa, Ten-
sas, Terrebonne, Union, Vermilion, Ver-
non, Washington, Webster, West Baton
Rouge, West Carroll, West Feliciana, and
Winn.
Maryland
Counties of Allegany, Frederick, Garrett,
Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s,
and Washington.
Massachusetts
Counties of Dukes and Nantucket.
Michigan
County of Dickinson, Gogebic, Iron, and
Ontonagon.
Minnesota
Counties of Aitkin, Anoka, Becker, Bel-
trami, Benton, Big Stone, Blue Earth,
Brown, Carlton, Carver, Cass, Chisago,
Clearwater, Cook, Cottonwood, Crow
Wing, Dakota, Dodge, Douglas, Faribault,
Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Hennepin,
Houston, Hubbard, Isanti, Itasca, Jackson,
Kanabec, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake,
Lake of the Woods, Le Sueur, Lincoln,
Lyon, McLeod, Mahnomen, Marshall,
Martin, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison,
Mower, Murray, Nicollet, Nobles, Nor-
man, Olmsted, Otter Tail, Pennington,
Pine, Pipestone, Polk, Ramsey, Red Lake,
Redwood, Renville, Rice, Rock, Roseau,
Saint Louis, Scott, Sherburne, Sibley,
Stearns, Steele, Todd, Traverse, Wabasha,
Wadena, Waseca, Washington, Watonwan,
Winona, Wright, and Yellow Medicine.
Mississippi
Counties of Adams, Alcorn, Amite,
Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Calhoun, Car-
roll, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Claiborne,
Clarke, Clay, Coahoma, Copiah, Coving-
ton, DeSoto, Forrest, Franklin, George,
Greene, Grenada, Hancock, Harrison,
Hinds, Holmes, Humphreys, Issaquena,
Itawamba, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Jef-
ferson Davis, Jones, Kemper, Lafayette,
Lamar, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Leake,
Lee, Leflore, Lincoln, Lowndes, Madison,
Marion, Marshall, Monroe, Montgomery,
Neshoba, Newton, Noxubee, Oktibbeha,
Panola, Pearl River, Perry, Pike, Pontotoc,
Prentiss, Quitman, Rankin, Scott, Shar-
key, Simpson, Smith, Stone, Sunflower,
Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tishomingo,
Tunica, Union, Walthall, Warren, Wash-
ington, Wayne, Webster, Wilkinson, Win-
ston, Yalobusha, and Yazoo.
Missouri
Counties of Adair, Andrew, Audrain, Bar-
ton, Bates, Benton, Bollinger, Boone,
Buchanan, Caldwell, Callaway, Camden,
Cape Girardeau, Carroll, Carter, Cass,
Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay,
Clinton, Cole, Cooper, Crawford, Dade,
Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Dent, Doug-
las, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene,
Harrison, Henry, Hickory, Holt, Howard,
Howell, Iron, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson,
Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lewis, Linn, Liv-
ingston, Macon, Madison, Maries, Marion,
Miller, Moniteau, Monroe, Montgomery,
Morgan, Nodaway, Oregon, Osage, Perry,
Pettis, Phelps, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski,
Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Reynolds,
Ripley, Saint Clair, Sainte Genevieve, Saint
Francois, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shan-
non, Shelby, Sullivan, Texas, Vernon, Wash-
ington, Wayne, Webster, Worth, and Wright.
Montana
Counties of Beaverhead, Big Horn,
Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cas-
cade, Chouteau, Daniels, Deer Lodge,
Fallon, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Gla-
cier, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin,
Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln,
McCone, Madison, Meagher, Mineral,
Missoula, Park, Phillips, Pondera, Powder
River, Powell, Ravalli, Richland, Roos-
evelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Sil-
ver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton,
Toole, and Valley.
Nebraska
Counties of Adams, Antelope, Banner,
Blaine, Boone, Box Butte, Brown, Buf-
falo, Burt, Butler, Cass, Cedar, Cherry,
Clay, Colfax, Cuming, Custer, Dakota,
Dawes, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge, Douglas,
Fillmore, Franklin, Gage, Greeley, Hall,
Hamilton, Holt, Hooker, Howard, Jeffer-
son, Kearney, Knox, Lancaster, Logan,
Loup, McPherson, Madison, Merrick,
Morrill, Nance, Nuckolls, Pierce, Platte,
Polk, Rock, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders,
Scotts Bluff, Seward, Sheridan, Sherman,
Sioux, Stanton, Thayer, Thomas, Thur-
ston, Valley, Washington, Wayne, Web-
ster, and York.
Nevada
County of Humboldt.
New Mexico
Counties of Bernalillo, Catron, Chaves,
Cibola, Colfax, Curry, DeBaca, Dona

October 21, 2024 1004 Bulletin No. 2024–43
Ana, Eddy, Grant, Guadalupe, Harding,
Hidalgo, Lea, Lincoln, Los Alamos, Luna,
McKinley, Mora, Otero, Quay, Rio Arriba,
Roosevelt, Sandoval, San Juan, San
Miguel, Santa Fe, Sierra, Socorro, Taos,
Torrance, Union, and Valencia.
New York
Counties of Cattaraugus, Genesee, Liv-
ingston, Monroe, and Wyoming.
North Carolina
Counties of Alamance, Alexander,
Alleghany, Anson, Ashe, Avery, Beau-
fort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Bun-
combe, Burke, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Cas-
well, Catawba, Chatham, Cherokee, Clay,
Cleveland, Columbus, Craven, Cumber-
land, Davidson, Davie, Edgecombe, For-
syth, Gaston, Graham, Granville, Greene,
Guilford, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson,
Hoke, Iredell, Jackson, Johnston, Jones,
Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, McDowell, Macon,
Martin, Mecklenburg, Mitchell, Mont-
gomery, Moore, New Hanover, Pamlico,
Pender, Person, Pitt, Polk, Randolph,
Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham,
Rowan, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland,
Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylva-
nia, Union, Vance, Warren, Washington,
Watauga, Wayne, Wilkes, Wilson, Yad-
kin, and Yancey.
North Dakota
Counties of Adams, Benson, Bottin-
eau, Bowman, Burke, Cavalier, Divide,
Grand Forks, McHenry, McKenzie, Nel-
son, Pembina, Pierce, Ramsey, Renville,
Rolette, Towner, Walsh, Ward, and Wil-
liams.
Ohio
Counties of Adams, Athens, Belmont,
Brown, Carroll, Champaign, Clark,
Clinton, Coshocton, Delaware, Fair-
field, Fayette, Franklin, Gallia, Greene,
Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking,
Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Licking,
Madison, Meigs, Monroe, Montgom-
ery, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry,
Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Tuscara-
was, Union, Vinton, Warren, and Wash-
ington.
Oklahoma
Counties of Alfalfa, Atoka, Beaver,
Beckham, Blaine, Bryan, Caddo, Cana-
dian, Carter, Choctaw, Cleveland, Coal,
Comanche, Cotton, Craig, Custer, Dewey,
Ellis, Garfield, Garvin, Grady, Grant,
Greer, Harmon, Harper, Hughes, Jack-
son, Jefferson, Johnston, Kay, Kingfisher,
Kiowa, Latimer, Le Flore, Love, McClain,
McCurtain, Major, Marshall, Murray,
Noble, Nowata, Osage, Pawnee, Payne,
Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Push-
mataha, Roger Mills, Seminole, Stephens,
Texas, Tillman, Washington, Washita,
Woods, and Woodward.
Oregon
Counties of Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop,
Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes,
Douglas, Gilliam, Harney, Hood River,
Jackson, Jefferson, Josephine, Klamath,
Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, Marion,
Morrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman,
Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa,
Wasco, Washington, and Yamhill.
Pennsylvania
Counties of Bedford, Cambria, Fayette,
Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Indiana, Somer-
set, Washington, and Westmoreland.
South Carolina
Counties of Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale,
Anderson, Bamberg, Beaufort, Berkeley,
Calhoun, Cherokee, Chester, Chesterfield,
Clarendon, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon,
Dorchester, Fairfield, Florence, George-
town, Greenville, Greenwood, Hamp-
ton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster,
Laurens, Lee, Lexington, McCormick,
Marion, Marlboro, Newberry, Oconee,
Orangeburg, Pickens, Richland, Saluda,
Spartanburg, Sumter, Union, Williams-
burg, and York.
South Dakota
Counties of Brookings, Butte, Custer,
Deuel, Fall River, Grant, Harding, Lake,
Lawrence, Lincoln, McCook, Meade,
Minnehaha, Moody, Oglala Lakota, Pen-
nington, Perkins, Roberts, Turner, and
Union.
Tennessee
Counties of Anderson, Bedford, Benton,
Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Can-
non, Carroll, Carter, Cheatham, Chester,
Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee, Crockett,
Cumberland, Davidson, Decatur, DeKalb,
Dickson, Dyer, Fayette, Fentress, Frank-
lin, Gibson, Giles, Grainger, Greene,
Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock,
Hardeman, Hardin, Hawkins, Haywood,
Henderson, Henry, Hickman, Houston,
Humphreys, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson,
Knox, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lewis, Lin-
coln, Loudon, McMinn, McNairy, Macon,
Madison, Marion, Marshall, Maury,
Meigs, Monroe, Montgomery, Moore,
Morgan, Obion, Overton, Perry, Pickett,
Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Robertson,
Rutherford, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier,
Shelby, Smith, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton,
Trousdale, Union, Van Buren, Warren,
Wayne, Weakley, White, Williamson, and
Wilson.
Texas
Counties of Anderson, Andrews, Ange-
lina, Aransas, Archer, Armstrong,
Atascosa, Austin, Bailey, Bandera, Bas-
trop, Baylor, Bee, Bell, Bexar, Blanco,
Borden, Bosque, Bowie, Brazoria, Bra-
zos, Brewster, Briscoe, Brooks, Brown,
Burleson, Burnet, Caldwell, Calhoun,
Callahan, Cameron, Camp, Carson,
Cass, Chambers, Cherokee, Childress,
Clay, Cochran, Coke, Coleman, Col-
lin, Collingsworth, Colorado, Comal,
Comanche, Concho, Cooke, Coryell,
Cottle, Crane, Crockett, Crosby, Cul-
berson, Dallas, Dawson, Deaf Smith,
Delta, Denton, DeWitt, Dickens, Dim-
mit, Donley, Duval, Eastland, Ector,
Edwards, Ellis, El Paso, Erath, Falls,
Fannin, Fayette, Fisher, Floyd, Foard,
Fort Bend, Franklin, Freestone, Frio,
Gaines, Galveston, Garza, Gillespie,
Glasscock, Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson,
Gregg, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hale, Hall,
Hamilton, Hardeman, Hardin, Harris,
Harrison, Haskell, Hays, Hemphill,
Henderson, Hidalgo, Hill, Hockley,
Hood, Hopkins, Houston, Howard,
Hudspeth, Hunt, Irion, Jack, Jackson,
Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jefferson, Jim Hogg,
Johnson, Jones, Karnes, Kaufman,
Kendall, Kenedy, Kent, Kerr, Kimble,

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1005 October 21, 2024
King, Kinney, Kleberg, Knox, Lamar,
Lampasas, La Salle, Lavaca, Lee,
Leon, Liberty, Limestone, Lipscomb,
Live Oak, Llano, Loving, Lubbock,
Lynn, McCulloch, McLennan, McMul-
len, Madison, Marion, Martin, Mason,
Matagorda, Maverick, Medina, Menard,
Midland, Milam, Mills, Mitchell, Mon-
tague, Montgomery, Morris, Motley,
Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nolan,
Oldham, Orange, Palo Pinto, Panola,
Parker, Parmer, Pecos, Polk, Potter,
Presidio, Rains, Randall, Reagan, Real,
Red River, Reeves, Refugio, Robertson,
Rockwall, Runnels, Rusk, Sabine, San
Augustine, San Jacinto, San Patricio,
San Saba, Schleicher, Scurry, Shackel-
ford, Shelby, Smith, Somervell, Starr,
Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Sutton,
Tarrant, Taylor, Terrell, Terry, Throck-
morton, Titus, Tom Green, Travis, Trin-
ity, Tyler, Upshur, Upton, Uvalde, Val
Verde, Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker,
Waller, Ward, Washington, Webb,
Wharton, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger,
Willacy, Williamson, Wilson, Winkler,
Wise, Wood, Yoakum, Young, Zapata,
and Zavala.
Virginia
Cities of Alexandria, Buena Vista, Char-
lottesville, Covington, Danville, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Galax, Harrisonburg, Lex-
ington, Lynchburg, Manassas, Manassas
Park, Martinsville, Radford, Roanoke,
Salem, Staunton, Waynesboro, and Win-
chester. Counties of Accomack, Albe-
marle, Alleghany, Amherst, Appomattox,
Arlington, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland,
Botetourt, Buchanan, Buckingham,
Campbell, Carroll, Charlotte, Clarke,
Craig, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd,
Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Giles,
Grayson, Greene, Halifax, Henry, High-
land, Lee, Loudoun, Louisa, Lunenburg,
Madison, Mecklenburg, Montgomery,
Nelson, Northampton, Orange, Page, Pat-
rick, Pittsylvania, Prince Edward, Prince
William, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Roa-
noke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell,
Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Spotsylvania,
Stafford, Tazewell, Warren, Washington,
Wise, and Wythe.
Washington
Counties of Adams, Asotin, Benton,
Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Columbia,
Cowlitz, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Gar-
field, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island, Jeffer-
son, King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Lewis, Lincoln,
Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Pierce,
San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish,
Spokane, Stevens, Thurston, Wahkiakum,
Walla Walla, Whatcom, Whitman, and
Yakima.
West Virginia
County of Barbour, Berkeley, Boone,
Braxton, Brooke, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay,
Doddridge, Fayette, Gilmer, Grant,
Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hardy, Harrison,
Jackson, Jefferson, Kanawha, Lewis, Lin-
coln, Logan, McDowell, Marion, Mar-
shall, Mason, Mercer, Mineral, Mingo,
Monongalia, Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas,
Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahon-
tas, Preston, Putnam, Raleigh, Randolph,
Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Taylor, Tucker,
Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel,
Wirt, Wood, and Wyoming.
Wisconsin
Counties of Adams, Ashland, Barron, Bay-
field, Brown, Buffalo, Burnett, Calumet,
Chippewa, Clark, Columbia, Crawford,
Dane, Dodge, Door, Douglas, Dunn, Eau
Claire, Florence, Fond du Lac, Forest,
Grant, Green, Green Lake, Iowa, Iron,
Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau, Kewaunee,
La Crosse, Lafayette, Langlade, Lincoln,
Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Monroe,
Oneida, Outagamie, Pepin, Polk, Portage,
Price, Richland, Rock, Rusk, Sauk, Saw-
yer, Taylor, Trempealeau, Vernon, Vilas,
Walworth, Washburn, Waukesha, Waupaca,
Waushara, Winnebago, and Wood.
Wyoming
Counties of Albany, Big Horn, Camp-
bell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont,
Goshen, Hot Springs, Johnson, Laramie,
Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Platte,
Sheridan, Sublette, Teton, Washakie, and
Weston.
Guam
Island of Guam.
Republic of the Marshall Islands
Atolls of Kwajalein, Majuro, and Wotje.
Federated States of Micronesia
States of Pingelap, Ulithi, Woleai, and
Yap.
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands
Islands of Rota and Saipan.
United States Virgin Islands
Islands of Saint Croix, Saint John, and
Saint Thomas.
Relief for Taxpayers
Affected by the 2023-2024
Terroristic Action in the
State of Israel
Notice 2024-72
SECTION I. PURPOSE
This notice provides relief under sec-
tion 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code
1

for persons that the Secretary of the Trea-
sury (Secretary) has determined to be
affected by the terroristic action in the
State of Israel throughout 2023 and 2024.
The Department of the Treasury and the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may pro-
vide additional relief in the future. For
taxpayers who were “Affected Taxpayers”
for purposes of Notice 2023-71, 2023-44
IRB 1191 (October 30, 2023), the sep-
arate determination of terroristic action
and grant of relief set forth in this notice
will also postpone taxpayer acts and gov-
ernment acts already postponed by Notice
2023-71 if the taxpayer is eligible for
relief under both notices.
1
Unless otherwise specified, all "Section” or “§” references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code or the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301).

October 21, 2024 1006 Bulletin No. 2024–43
SECTION II. BACKGROUND
Section 7508A(a) provides the Sec-
retary or her delegate with authority to
postpone the time (up to one year) for
performing certain acts under the internal
revenue laws for a taxpayer determined
by the Secretary or her delegate to be
affected by a terroristic or military action
as defined in section 692(c)(2). Section
692(c)(2) defines a terroristic action as
“any terroristic activity which a prepon-
derance of the evidence indicates was
directed against the United States or any
of its allies.”
Section 4.01(1) of Revenue Procedure
2004-26, 2004-1 C.B. 890, provides that
prior to publishing a determination that
an event outside the United States consti-
tutes a terroristic action within the mean-
ing of section 692(c)(2), the Secretary or
her delegate will ascertain whether the
Department of State and the Department
of Justice believe that a preponderance
of the evidence indicates that the event
resulted from terrorist activity directed
against the United States or its allies. On
September 30, 2024, in accordance with
the procedures described in Rev. Proc.
2004-26, the Secretary determined that
the terrorist activity throughout 2023 and
2024 against the State of Israel constitutes
terroristic action within the meaning of
section 692(c)(2).
SECTION III. GRANT OF RELIEF
With respect to taxpayers described
in section III.A of this notice (affected
taxpayers), this notice postpones the due
dates for the actions described in section
III.B and III.C of this notice until Septem-
ber 30, 2025.
A. Affected Taxpayers
Section 301.7508A-1(d)(1) describes
several types of “affected taxpayers” eli-
gible for relief under section 7508A. The
Secretary has determined that the follow-
ing types of taxpayers are affected taxpay-
ers with respect to the terroristic action eli-
gible for the relief provided in this notice:
• Any individual whose principal res-
idence, and any business entity or
sole proprietor whose principal place
of business, is located in the State of
Israel, the West Bank or Gaza (covered
area);
• Any individual affiliated with a rec-
ognized government or philanthropic
organization and who is assisting in the
covered area, such as a relief worker;
• Any individual, business entity or sole
proprietor, or estate or trust whose tax
return preparer or records necessary to
meet a deadline for postponed acts are
located in the covered area;
• Any spouse of an affected taxpayer,
solely with regard to a joint return of
two married individuals; and
• Any individual visiting the covered
area who was killed, injured, or taken
hostage as a result of the terroristic
action.
The IRS automatically identifies taxpay-
ers whose principal residence or principal
place of business is located in the covered
area based on previously filed returns and
applies relief. Affected taxpayers whose
principal residence or principal place
of business is not located in the covered
area should call the IRS disaster hotline at
(866) 562-5227 to request relief. Alterna-
tively, international callers may call (267)
941-1000.
B. Postponement of Due Dates with
Respect to Certain Taxpayer Acts
Affected taxpayers have until Septem-
ber 30, 2025, to file tax returns, make tax
payments, and perform certain time-sen-
sitive acts listed in § 301.7508A-1(c)(1)
and Revenue Procedure 2018-58, 2018-50
IRB 990 (December 10, 2018), that are
due to be performed on or after September
30, 2024, and before September 30, 2025.
Any taxpayer acts that are due to be per-
formed on or after September 30, 2024,
and before September 30, 2025, are post-
poned until September 30, 2025. These
acts include, but are not limited to:
• Filing any return of income tax, estate
tax, gift tax, generation-skipping trans-
fer tax, excise tax (other than fire-
arms tax), harbor maintenance tax, or
employment tax;
• Paying any income tax, estate tax, gift
tax, generation-skipping transfer tax,
excise tax (other than firearms tax),
harbor maintenance tax, or employ-
ment tax, or any installment of those
taxes;
• Making contributions to a qualified
retirement plan;
• Filing a petition with the Tax Court;
• Filing a claim for credit or refund of
any tax; and
• Bringing suit upon a claim for credit or
refund of any tax.
This is not an exhaustive list. For further
information, see § 301.7508A-1(c)(1) and
Rev. Proc. 2018-58.
C. Postponement of Due Dates with
Respect to Certain Government Acts
This notice also provides the IRS
with additional time to perform certain
time-sensitive actions with respect to
affected taxpayers. Any government acts
described in § 301.7508A-1(c)(2) that are
due to be performed on or after September
30, 2024, and before September 30, 2025,
are postponed until September 30, 2025.
These acts include:
• Assessing any tax;
• Giving or making any notice or demand
for the payment of any tax, or with
respect to any liability to the United
States in respect of any tax;
• Collecting by the IRS, by levy or oth-
erwise, of the amount of any liability in
respect of any tax; and
• Bringing suit by the United States, or
any officer on its behalf, in respect of
any liability in respect of any tax; and
allowing a credit or refund of any tax.
SECTION IV. INTERACTION WITH
NOTICE 2023-71
Notice 2023-71 provided taxpayers
affected by the October 7, 2023 Terrorist
Attacks against the State of Israel until
October 7, 2024, to perform acts due to be
performed on or after October 7, 2023, and
before October 7, 2024. Time-sensitive
acts postponed by Notice 2023-71 are not
due to be performed until after the begin-
ning of the postponement period provided
by this notice. Accordingly, taxpayers
eligible for relief under Notice 2023-71
who are also eligible for relief under this
notice have until September 30, 2025, to
perform the time-sensitive acts that were
postponed by Notice 2023-71. Taxpayers
eligible for relief under Notice 2023-71
who are not also eligible for relief under
this notice have until October 7, 2024, to

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1007 October 21, 2024
perform the time-sensitive acts postponed
by Notice 2023-71. Government acts that
were postponed by Notice 2023-71 until
October 7, 2024, and that are described
in section III.C., are also postponed by
this notice until September 30, 2025, for
taxpayers that are eligible for relief under
Notice 2023-71 and this notice.
SECTION V. DRAFTING
INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is
the Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration). For fur-
ther information regarding this notice, you
may call (202) 317-3400 (not a toll-free
number).
Additional Guidance with
Respect to Long-Term,
Part-Time Employees,
Including Guidance
Regarding Application of
Section 403(b)(12) to Long-
Term, Part-Time Employees
under Section 403(b) Plans
Notice 2024-73
I. PURPOSE
This notice provides guidance on dis-
crete issues related to the application of
the nondiscrimination rules of section
403(b)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code) with respect to long-term, part-
time employees under a plan that satis-
fies the requirements of section 403(b)
(section 403(b) plan). Section 125(a)(2)
of Division T of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2023, Pub. L. 117-328,
136 Stat. 4459 (2022), known as the
SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0
Act), amended section 403(b)(12) of the
Code. In addition, section 125(a)(1) of the
SECURE 2.0 Act added section 202(c) of
the Employee Retirement Income Secu-
rity Act of 1974, P.L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829,
as amended (ERISA), to provide rules for
including long-term, part-time employees
in plans subject to ERISA (ERISA LTPT
employees), and section 125(b) of the
SECURE 2.0 Act added section 203(b)
(4) of ERISA to provide a special vesting
rule for ERISA LTPT employees. Sec-
tion 125(a) and (b) of the SECURE 2.0
Act apply to plan years beginning after
December 31, 2024.
This notice also (1) provides that the
Department of the Treasury (Treasury
Department) and the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) anticipate issuing proposed
regulations with respect to section 403(b)
(12)(D) of the Code and guidance with
respect to sections 202(c) and 203(b)
(4) of ERISA,
1
(2) announces that the
final regulation that the Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS intend to issue related
to long-term, part-time employees under
section 401(k) plans (section 401(k) LTPT
employees)
2
will apply no earlier than to
plan years that begin on or after January
1, 2026, and (3) asks for comments on the
content of this notice.
II. BACKGROUND
Section 403(b) of the Code sets forth
requirements applicable to contributions
to a section 403(b) plan made for employ-
ees who are performing services for a
public school of a State or a local govern-
ment, for employees of employers that are
tax-exempt organizations under section
501(c)(3), and for ministers described in
section 414(e)(5)(A).
Section 403(b)(12)(A)(i) provides that,
with respect to contributions not made
pursuant to a salary reduction agree-
ment, a section 403(b) plan must satisfy
the requirements under section 401(a)
(4), (5), (17) and (26), the nondiscrim-
ination requirements for matching and
employee after-tax contributions under
section 401(m), and the coverage require-
ments under section 410(b), in the same
manner as if the section 403(b) plan were
described in section 401(a).
Section 403(b)(12)(A)(ii) provides
that, with respect to contributions made
pursuant to a salary reduction agreement
(elective deferrals), a section 403(b) plan
must satisfy the “universal availability”
requirement. Under the universal avail-
ability requirement, all employees of an
employer maintaining a section 403(b)
plan generally must be permitted to make
elective deferrals if any employee of the
employer is permitted to make elective
deferrals. However, the flush language
of section 403(b)(12)(A) provides that
certain categories of employees may be
excluded from making elective deferrals
despite the universal availability require-
ment, including students performing ser-
vices described in section 3121(b)(10)
(student employees) and employees who
normally work less than 20 hours per
week (part-time employees).
3

Section 403(b)(12)(A) provides that
the student employee exclusion and the
part-time employee exclusion are “[s]
ubject to the conditions applicable under
section 410(b)(4).” In turn, section 410(b)
(4) provides that “if a plan (i) prescribes
minimum age and service requirements
as a condition of participation, and (ii)
excludes all employees not meeting such
requirements from participation, then such
employees shall be excluded from consid-
eration for purposes of this subsection.”
(Emphasis added.) This section 410(b)(4)
consistency requirement means that, if a
plan imposes minimum age and service
eligibility conditions, those conditions
must be consistently applied and that fail-
ure to do so nullifies the ability to apply
those eligibility conditions with respect to
any employee.
Section 1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(i) interprets
the phrase “[s]ubject to the conditions
applicable under section 410(b)(4)” in
section 403(b)(12)(A) as imposing a sec-
tion 403(b) consistency requirement that
is similar to the section 410(b)(4) consis-
tency requirement for purposes of apply-
ing the student employee and part-time
employee exclusions. For example, under
this section 403(b) consistency require-
ment, if any employee who is described
1
The Secretary of the Treasury has interpretive authority over sections 202 and 203 of ERISA pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App.
2
The Treasury Department and the IRS issued a proposed regulation related to rules for section 401(k) LTPT employees on November 27, 2023 (88 FR 82796).
3
Section 1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(ii)(E) allows a plan to set a lower number of hours per week than 20 hours per week for purposes of defining a part-time employee under the part-time employee
exclusion.

October 21, 2024 1008 Bulletin No. 2024–43
in the part-time exclusion may make
elective deferrals, then no employee who
is described in the part-time employee
exclusion may be excluded from mak-
ing elective deferrals under the part-time
exclusion.
Section 125(a)(1) of the SECURE
2.0 Act added section 202(c) of ERISA,
which provides rules for ERISA LTPT
employees. Section 202(c)(1) of ERISA
provides, in part, that a salary reduction
agreement (as described in section 403(b)
of the Code) may not require, as a con-
dition of participation in the agreement,
that an employee complete a period of
service with the employer maintaining
the plan that extends beyond the close
of the earlier of (A) the period permit-
ted under section 202(a)(1) of ERISA
(the completion of one year of service or
the attainment of age 21) or (B) the first
24-month period consisting of two con-
secutive 12-month periods during each of
which the employee has worked at least
500 hours of service, and by the close
of which the employee has satisfied the
minimum age requirement under section
202(a)(1)(A)(i) of ERISA (attainment of
age 21). Section 401(k)(2)(D) of the Code
provides similar rules for section 401(k)
LTPT employees, which are the subject of
a proposed regulation issued on Novem-
ber 27, 2023 (see footnote 2).
Section 125(a)(2) of the SECURE 2.0
Act made a conforming amendment to sec-
tion 403(b)(12)(A) of the Code and added
section 403(b)(12)(D). Section 403(b)(12)
(D)(i) provides, in relevant part, that in the
case of employees who are eligible to par-
ticipate in a section 403(b) plan solely by
reason of the eligibility rules for ERISA
LTPT employees under section 202(c)(1)
(B) of ERISA: (1) notwithstanding section
401(a)(4) of the Code, an employer is not
required to make nonelective or matching
contributions on behalf of ERISA LTPT
employees even if nonelective or match-
ing contributions are made on behalf of
other employees eligible to participate in
the plan; and (2) the employer may elect to
exclude ERISA LTPT employees from the
application of sections 401(a)(4), 401(m)
(2), and 410(b). Section 401(k)(15)(B)(i)
provides similar rules with respect to sec-
tion 401(k) LTPT employees.
Section 125(b) of the SECURE 2.0
Act added section 203(b)(4) of ERISA,
which provides a special vesting rule for
ERISA LTPT employees.
4
Section 203(b)
(4) of ERISA provides that in determining
whether an ERISA LTPT employee has a
nonforfeitable right to employer contri-
butions, each 12-month period for which
the employee has at least 500 hours of
service is treated as a year of service. For
purposes of section 203(b)(4) of ERISA,
12-month periods must be determined in
the same manner as under the last sen-
tence of section 202(a)(3)(A) of ERISA,
except that 12-month periods beginning
before January 1, 2023, are not taken into
account. Section 203(b)(4) of ERISA uses
different language from the special vest-
ing rules of section 401(k)(15)(B)(iii) and
(iv) of the Code with respect to section
401(k) LTPT employees.
5
III. GUIDANCE ON THE
APPLICATION OF SECTION 403(b)
(12) TO ERISA LTPT EMPLOYEES
Q-1: Do the eligibility rules for ERISA
LTPT employees under section 202(c) of
ERISA apply to a section 403(b) plan that
is not subject to title I of ERISA?
A-1: No. Although section 125(a)(2)
(B)(i) of the SECURE 2.0 Act provides a
conforming amendment to section 403(b)
(12)(A) of the Code that references sec-
tion 202(c) of ERISA, the conforming
amendment to the Code does not cause
the eligibility rules for ERISA LTPT
employees under section 202(c) of ERISA
to apply to a section 403(b) plan that is
not subject to title I of ERISA. Thus, for
example, a governmental plan under sec-
tion 3(32) of ERISA (which is not subject
to title I of ERISA pursuant to section 4(b)
of ERISA) is not subject to the eligibility
rules for ERISA LTPT employees under
section 202(c) of ERISA.
Q-2: Is a section 403(b) plan that is
subject to ERISA required to provide the
right to make elective deferrals to a part-
time employee who qualifies as an ERISA
LTPT employee?
A-2: Yes. The part-time employee
exclusion is a statutory exclusion based on
service and applies to employees who nor-
mally work less than 20 hours per week. A
part-time employee who also qualifies
as an ERISA LTPT employee (by meet-
ing the standards under section 202(c) of
ERISA) is covered by the eligibility rules
for ERISA LTPT employees under section
202(c) of ERISA. Accordingly, unless
another statutory exclusion applies, a sec-
tion 403(b) plan that is subject to ERISA
must provide the right to make elective
deferrals to a part-time employee who
qualifies as an ERISA LTPT employee. In
contrast, a part-time employee who does
not qualify as an ERISA LTPT employee
(for example, because the employee has
not worked 2 consecutive years of 500
hours) is not covered by the eligibility
rules for ERISA LTPT employees under
section 202(c) of ERISA.
Q-3: May a section 403(b) plan that is
subject to ERISA continue to retain a part-
time employee exclusion for part-time
employees who do not qualify as ERISA
LTPT employees?
A-3: Yes. A section 403(b) plan that is
subject to ERISA may continue to retain
a part-time employee exclusion for part-
time employees who do not qualify as
ERISA LTPT employees. Excluding part-
time employees who do not qualify as
ERISA LTPT employees will not cause the
plan to violate the section 403(b) consis-
tency requirement under § 1.403(b)-5(b)
(4)(i), which prevents a plan from selec-
tively applying the part-time employee
4
For a section 403(b) plan, section 403(b)(1)(C) of the Code requires that an employee’s rights under a section 403(b) annuity contract be nonforfeitable. However, § 1.403(b)-3(d)(2) provides
rules that treat unvested amounts as if they are under a separate annuity contract from the vested amounts and provides that the separate annuity contract for unvested amounts is subject to
section 403(c).
5
For example, section 401(k)(15)(B)(iii) provides a special vesting rule that applies to employees described in section 401(k)(15)(B)(i) (“employees who are eligible to participate in the
arrangement solely by reason of” the eligibility rules for section 401(k) LTPT employees under section 401(k)(2)(D)(ii)), and section 401(k)(15)(B)(iv) provides a separate rule for former
section 401(k) LTPT employees that references the special vesting rule. (Emphasis added.) In contrast, section 203(b)(4) of ERISA applies to an “employee who became eligible to participate
... solely by reason of” the eligibility rules for ERISA LTPT employees under section 202(c)(1)(B) of ERISA, and section 203(b)(4) of ERISA does not include a separate rule for former
ERISA LTPT employees. (Emphasis added.) As described in section VI of this notice, the Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing guidance with respect to the vesting rules of
section 203(b)(4) of ERISA.

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1009 October 21, 2024
exclusion to some, but not all, part-time
employees. Because the eligibility rules
for ERISA LTPT employees under sec-
tion 202(c) of ERISA are new statutory
requirements, plans would not be selec-
tively applying the part-time employee
exclusion by continuing to exclude from
making elective deferrals part-time
employees who do not qualify as ERISA
LTPT employees.
6
The Treasury Depart-
ment and the IRS anticipate updating the
section 403(b) consistency requirement
under § 1.403(b)-5(b)(4)(i) in a manner
consistent with this Q&A A-3.
Q-4: Is a section 403(b) plan that is
subject to ERISA required to provide the
right to make elective deferrals to a stu-
dent employee who qualifies as an ERISA
LTPT employee?
A-4: No. The student employee
exclusion in section 403(b)(12)(A) of
the Code is a statutory exclusion based
on a classification (students performing
services described in section 3121(b)
(10)), rather than on service.
7
Therefore,
a section 403(b) plan that is subject to
ERISA may continue to exclude a student
employee from making elective deferrals
under the plan regardless of whether the
individual qualifies as an ERISA LTPT
employee.
8

Q-5: May an employer with a sec-
tion 403(b) plan that is subject to ERISA
exclude ERISA LTPT employees for pur-
poses of determining whether matching
contributions satisfy the nondiscrimina-
tion requirements applicable to a section
403(b) plan under section 401(m)(2)?
A-5: Yes. Section 403(b)(12)(D)(i)
(II) provides that an employer with a sec-
tion 403(b) plan that is subject to ERISA
may exclude ERISA LTPT employees
from certain nondiscrimination require-
ments, including section 401(m)(2). Thus,
an employer with a section 403(b) plan
that is subject to ERISA may exclude
ERISA LTPT employees for purposes
of applying the actual contribution per-
centage (ACP) test under section 401(m)
(2). Similarly, because ACP safe harbors
under section 401(m)(11) and (12) are
alternative ways of being treated as satis-
fying the ACP test under section 401(m)
(2), this exclusion of ERISA LTPT
employees from section 401(m)(2) also is
treated as applying under section 401(m)
(11) and (12). Accordingly, plans that use
the ACP safe harbor under section 401(m)
(11) or (12) are not required to provide
safe harbor contributions to ERISA LTPT
employees.
Q-6: Can an employer use section
403(b)(12)(D) to continue to exclude
an ERISA LTPT employee who later
becomes eligible to participate in the
plan for reasons other than the eligibility
rules for ERISA LTPT employees under
section 202(c)(1)(B) of ERISA (a former
ERISA LTPT employee) from receiving
nonelective or matching contributions or
from the application of the nondiscrimi-
nation requirements in sections 401(a)(4),
401(m)(2), and 410(b) of the Code?
A-6: No. Section 403(b)(12)(D)
applies to “employees who are eligible to
participate in the [salary reduction] agree-
ment solely by reason of” the eligibility
rules for ERISA LTPT employees under
section 202(c)(1)(B) of ERISA. (Empha-
sis added.) Thus, if an ERISA LTPT
employee becomes a former ERISA LTPT
employee for a year (for example, because
the employee has worked 1,000 hours in
the preceding year and is no longer a part-
time employee under § 1.403(b)-5(b)(4)
(iii)(B)), then section 403(b)(12)(D) of
the Code no longer applies to that former
ERISA LTPT employee. Accordingly, an
employer cannot use section 403(b)(12)
(D) to exclude a former ERISA LTPT
employee from receiving nonelective or
matching contributions or from the appli-
cation of the nondiscrimination require-
ments under sections 401(a)(4), 401(m)
(2), and 410(b).
9
IV. APPLICABILITY DATE
This notice applies for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2024.
V. APPLICABILITY DATE OF FINAL
REGULATION FOR SECTION 401(k)
LTPT EMPLOYEES
The final regulation related to section
401(k) LTPT employees will apply no
earlier than to plan years that begin on or
after January 1, 2026.
VI. FUTURE GUIDANCE FOR
ERISA LTPT EMPLOYEES
The Treasury Department and the IRS
anticipate issuing proposed regulations
with respect to section 403(b)(12)(D) and
guidance with respect to sections 202(c)
and 203(b)(4) of ERISA. The Treasury
Department and the IRS anticipate that the
guidance generally will be similar to final
regulations with respect to section 401(k)
LTPT employees.
VII. COMMENTS
Comments are requested on the content of
this notice, including the application of sec-
tion 403(b)(12)(D) of the Code and section
125 of the SECURE 2.0 Act to section 403(b)
plans. Additionally, comments are requested
on any rules with respect to section 401(k)
LTPT employees (including former sec-
tion 401(k) LTPT employees) that should
apply differently for ERISA LTPT employ-
ees under section 403(b) plans. Comments
should be submitted in writing on or before
December 20, 2024 and should include a ref-
erence to Notice 2024-73. Comments may
be submitted electronically via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov
(type “Notice 2024-73” in the search field on
the Regulations.gov home page to find this
notice and submit comments). Alternatively,
comments may be submitted by mail to:
Internal Revenue Service
Attn: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2024-73),
Room 5203
P.O. Box 7604
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044.
6
To retain a part-time employee exclusion and meet the section 403(b) consistency requirement, a plan must continue to exclude from making elective deferrals all part-time employees who
do not qualify as ERISA LTPT employees.
7
Although § 31.3121(b)(10)-2(d) provides that hours worked is a factor in determining whether an employee is a student, as well as providing an unsafe harbor if an employee normally works
at least 40 hours per week (which is equivalent to 2,000 hours a year), the statutory student exclusion is not based principally on service.
8
Similarly, the nonresident alien exclusion and the exclusion for employees otherwise eligible under another section 403(b) plan, an eligible governmental section 457(b) plan, or a section
401(k) plan sponsored by the same employer are section 403(b)(12)(A) statutory exclusions based on classifications, rather than on service.
9
If section 403(b)(12)(D) does not apply, then the general nondiscrimination rules for nonelective and matching contributions of section 403(b)(12)(A)(i) apply to a former ERISA LTPT
employee.

October 21, 2024 1010 Bulletin No. 2024–43
The Treasury Department and the IRS
will publish for public availability any
comment submitted electronically or on
paper to its public docket.
VIII. DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this notice is
Patrick Gutierrez of the Office of Asso-
ciate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits,
Exempt Organizations, and Employment
Taxes). For further information regarding
this notice, please contact Mr. Gutierrez at
(202) 317-4148 (not a toll-free number).
26 CFR 601.105: Examination of returns and claims
for refund, credit or abatement; determination of
correct tax liability.
(Also: Part 1, §§ 142 and 42)
Rev. Proc. 2024-38
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This revenue procedure provides guid-
ance regarding the income requirements for
qualified residential rental projects financed
with exempt facility bonds under § 142(d)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (Code)
1
and for qualified low-in-
come housing projects under § 42, certain
income requirement provisions of which
cross-reference to § 142(d). Specifically,
this revenue procedure provides guidance
on the effect on the income requirements
under §§ 142(d) and 42 of the alternative
income eligibility requirements for the
Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment–Veterans Affairs Supportive Hous-
ing (HUD–VASH) program, set forth in
the notice published by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
in the Federal Register on August 13, 2024,
89 F.R. 65769 (HUD–VASH Notice).
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND
.01 Section 103(a) provides that,
except as provided in § 103(b), gross
income does not include interest on any
State or local bond. Section 103(b)(1)
provides that § 103(a) does not apply
to any private activity bond that is not
a qualified bond (within the meaning of
§ 141). Section 141(e) provides that the
term “qualified bond” includes any pri-
vate activity bond that is an exempt facil-
ity bond.
.02 Section 142(a)(7) provides that
the term “exempt facility bond” includes
any bond issued as part of an issue 95
percent or more of the net proceeds of
which are to be used to provide quali-
fied residential rental projects. Section
142(d)(1) generally provides that the
term “qualified residential rental proj-
ect” means any project for residential
rental property if, at all times during
the qualified project period, the project
meets one of the two tests specified in
§ 142(d)(1)(A) and (B) as elected by the
issuer at the time of the issuance of the
issue with respect to the project. Under
§ 142(d)(1)(A), a residential rental proj-
ect meets the test if 20 percent or more
of the residential units in the project are
occupied by individuals whose income is
50 percent or less of area median gross
income. Under § 142(d)(1)(B), the proj-
ect meets the test if 40 percent or more
of the residential units in the project are
occupied by individuals whose income is
60 percent or less of area median gross
income.
.03 Section 142(d)(2)(B)(i) provides,
in general, that income of individuals and
area median gross income shall be deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Treasury or
her delegate in a manner consistent with
determinations of lower income families
and area median gross income under sec-
tion 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937, hereinafter referred to as “Sec-
tion 8 of the USHA of 1937” or “Section
8.”
2
.04 Section 142(d)(3) provides rules
for income determinations. Section
142(d)(3)(A) generally provides that, for
purposes of § 142(d), the determination
of whether the income of a resident of a
unit in a project exceeds the applicable
income limit shall be made at least annu-
ally on the basis of the current income of
the resident.
.05 Section 1.103-8(b)(8)(v) of the
Income Tax Regulations
3
provides in
relevant part that individuals and fami-
lies of low or moderate income shall be
determined in a manner consistent with
determinations of lower income families
under Section 8 of the USHA of 1937, as
amended. Additionally, § 1.103-8(b)(8)(v)
provides that the method of determining
low or moderate income in effect on the
date of issue of the exempt facility bonds
financing the qualified residential rental
project will be determinative for such
issue, even if such method is subsequently
changed.
.06 Section 42(g)(4) provides that
the rules in § 142(d)(2)(B)(i) regarding
income determinations shall apply for pur-
poses of determining whether any project
is a qualified low-income housing project
(as defined in § 42(g)) and whether any
unit is a low-income unit (as defined in
§ 42(i)(3)); except that, in applying those
provisions for those purposes, the term
“gross rent” shall have the meaning given
such term by § 42(g)(2)(B). The determi-
nation whether a unit is a low-income unit
includes determinations that the individ-
uals occupying the unit meet the income
limitation applicable to the unit under
§ 42(g)(1), that the unit is rent-restricted
as defined in § 42(g)(2), and that the unit
is suitable for occupancy, see § 42(i)(3)
(B).
.07 Section 1.42-5(b)(1)(vi) provides
that owners of a low-income housing
project must be required to keep records
to show for each year in the compliance
period the annual income certification of
each low-income tenant group per unit.
4

In § 42(g)(8)(B), there is an exception to
this recertification requirement for a 100
percent low-income building.
.08 Section 1.42-5(b)(1)(vii) provides
that tenant income is calculated in a man-
1
Unless otherwise specified, all “Section” or “§” references are to sections of the Code or the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1).
2
The definition of income for the programs authorized under the USHA of 1937, including the Section 8 programs, is found in section 3(b) of that Act.
3
Regulations have not been promulgated under § 142(d). The regulations promulgated under § 103(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (1954 Code), the predecessor to § 142(d) of
the Code, continue to apply to bonds issued to finance residential rental projects, except as otherwise modified by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (1986 Act), Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085
(1986), 1986-3 (Vol. 1) C.B. 519-575, and subsequent law. In the 1986 Act, §§ 103 and 103A of the 1954 Code regarding tax-exempt bonds were reorganized into § 103 and §§ 141 through
150 of the Code. Congress intended that to the extent not amended by the 1986 Act, all principles of pre-1986 Act law would continue to apply to the reorganized provisions. See 2 H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 841, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. II-686 (1986), 1986-3 (Vol. 4) C.B. 686.
4
Under § 42(i)(1), the compliance period with respect to any building is the period of 15 taxable years beginning with the first taxable year of the credit period with respect to the building.

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1011 October 21, 2024
ner consistent with the determination
of annual income under Section 8 of the
USHA of 1937, not in accordance with
the determination of gross income for
Federal income tax purposes. In the case
of a tenant receiving housing assistance
payments under Section 8, the documen-
tation requirement of § 1.42-5(b)(1)(vii)
is satisfied if the public housing authority
provides a statement to the building owner
declaring that the tenant’s income does
not exceed the applicable income limit
under § 42(g).
.09 Notice 88-80, 1988-2 C.B. 396,
informed taxpayers that regulations to be
issued under § 42(g)(1) (relating to the
determination of a qualified low-income
housing project) would provide that the
income of individuals and area median
gross income (adjusted for family size) are
to be made in a manner consistent with the
determination of annual income and the
estimates for median family income under
Section 8 of the USHA of 1937. Notice
88-80 referred to 24 CFR 813.106 for the
definition of annual income under Section
8. (The regulatory provisions cited have
since been recodified, and 24 CFR 5.609
now defines annual income for purposes
of Section 8.) The notice also clarified that
the income of individuals and area median
gross income (adjusted for family size) for
purposes of § 42(g)(1) does not refer to
items of income used in determining gross
income for purposes of computing Federal
income tax liability.
.10 On August 13, 2024, HUD pub-
lished the HUD–VASH Notice, which is
titled “Section 8 Housing Choice Vouch-
ers: Revised Implementation of the HUD–
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
Program.” This HUD notice sets forth the
policies and procedures for the adminis-
tration of eligibility for, and amount of,
tenant-based and project-based Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance
under the HUD–VASH program. The
HUD-VASH program combines HUD’s
Housing Choice rental assistance with
case management and clinical services
provided by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to assist veterans experienc-
ing homelessness. That program is admin-
istered by local public housing agencies
(PHAs) that have partnered with local VA
medical facilities or other entities as desig-
nated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Among other guidance, the HUD–VASH
Notice provides new requirements for
determining income for purposes of eli-
gibility of HUD–VASH applicants that
receive VA service-connected disability
benefits.
.11 The HUD–VASH Notice seeks
to ensure that homeless veterans are not
excluded from participation in the HUD–
VASH program because of their VA ser-
vice-connected disability benefits. In
particular, the HUD–VASH Notice seeks
to ensure disabled veterans’ opportunity
to reside in HUD–VASH project-based-
voucher housing, located either on the site
of a VA facility or where HUD–VASH
supportive services are provided on-site
at the housing. To achieve these goals,
HUD is exercising its waiver authority
and is establishing new requirements for
determining income for purposes of eli-
gibility for HUD–VASH. Specifically, for
HUD–VASH applicants receiving VA ser-
vice-connected disability benefits, HUD
is waiving section 3(b) of the USHA of
1937.
5
That section applies for purposes
of determinations of lower income family
eligibility based on area median income
under the USHA of 1937, including Sec-
tion 8 programs. HUD is also waiving
24 CFR 5.609(a)(1), which provides that
annual income includes all amounts not
specifically excluded in 24 CFR 5.609(b).
(These waivers, together, are hereinafter
referred to as “the HUD–VASH income
eligibility waiver.”) HUD-VASH Notice,
89 FR 65773. As an alternative require-
ment, the PHA must determine the HUD–
VASH applicant’s annual income for pur-
poses of income eligibility by excluding
all VA service-connected disability bene-
fits received by the applicant in addition
to the income exclusions listed under 24
CFR 5.609(b). Id. This special income
exclusion applies only to the definition of
annual income for purposes of determin-
ing income eligibility. Id.
.12 Section 4.01 and Section 4.02 of
this revenue procedure provide the same
exclusion for purposes of § 142(d)(2) and
(3) and § 42, respectively.
6
This exclusion
mirrors the HUD–VASH income eligi-
bility waiver because § 142(d)(2)(B)(i)
requires that the income of individuals
and area median gross income be deter-
mined in a manner consistent with deter-
minations of lower income families and
area median gross income under Section 8
of the USHA of 1937.
SECTION 3. SCOPE
This revenue procedure applies for
purposes of determining income under §§
142(d) and 42 of prospective and current
tenants who, as of the date of the income
determination, are approved to receive or
are currently receiving assistance under
the HUD–VASH program and to whom
the HUD–VASH income eligibility waiver
applies (In-scope Tenants).
SECTION 4. APPLICATION
.01 For purposes of initial and con-
tinuing income determinations under
§ 142(d)(2) and (3), respectively, all VA
service-connected disability benefits are
excluded from income, consistent with the
HUD–VASH income eligibility waiver,
for In-scope Tenants.
.02 For purposes of initial and continu-
ing income determinations with respect to
whether any project is a qualified low-in-
come housing project (as defined in §
42(g)), and whether any unit is a low-in-
come unit (as defined in § 42(i)(3)), all VA
service-connected disability benefits are
excluded from income, consistent with the
HUD–VASH income eligibility waiver,
for In-scope Tenants.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
.01 This revenue procedure applies to
income determinations with respect to
residential rental projects financed with
exempt facility bonds under § 142(d)
issued as part of an issue with an issue
date on or after October 24, 2024. This
revenue procedure may be applied to
income determinations with respect to
5
See explanation in footnote 2 above.
6
Section 42(g)(4) makes § 142(d)(2) applicable for satisfying the requirements to be a qualified low-income housing project and to be a low-income unit. Thus, § 142(d)(2) applies under
§ 42 for determining tenant income.

October 21, 2024 1012 Bulletin No. 2024–43
residential rental projects financed with
exempt facility bonds under § 142(d)
issued as part of an issue with an issue
date before October 24, 2024, notwith-
standing the provision of § 1.103-8(b)(8)
(v) that states that the method of deter-
mining low or moderate income in effect
on the date of issue will be determinative
for such issue, even if such method is
subsequently changed.
.02 This revenue procedure applies to
income determinations with respect to
qualified low-income housing projects (as
defined in § 42(g)), and low-income units
(as defined in § 42(i)(3)) on or after Octo-
ber 24, 2024.
SECTION 6. DRAFTING
INFORMATION
The principal authors of this revenue
procedure are Jian H. Grant, Zoran Sto-
janovic, and Brian Choi of the Office
of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial
Institutions & Products), and James A.
Holmes of the Office of the Associate
Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Spe-
cial Industries). For further information
regarding this revenue procedure relat-
ing to residential rental projects under
§ 142(d), contact Mr. Choi on (202) 317-
3154; for further information regarding
this revenue procedure relating to the
low-income housing credit under § 42,
please contact Mr. Holmes on (202) 317-
4137 (not toll-free numbers).

Bulletin No. 2024–43 1013 October 21, 2024
Part IV
Deletions From Cumulative
List of Organizations,
Contributions to Which are
Deductible Under Section
170 of the Code
Announcement 2024-35
Table of Contents
The Internal Revenue Service has
revoked its determination that the organi-
zations listed below qualify as organiza-
tions described in sections 501(c)(3) and
170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
Generally, the IRS will not disallow
deductions for contributions made to a
listed organization on or before the date
of announcement in the Internal Revenue
Bulletin that an organization no longer
qualifies. However, the IRS is not pre-
cluded from disallowing a deduction for
any contributions made after an organiza-
tion ceases to qualify under section 170(c)
(2) if the organization has not timely filed
a suit for declaratory judgment under sec-
tion 7428 and if the contributor (1) had
knowledge of the revocation of the ruling
or determination letter, (2) was aware that
such revocation was imminent, or (3) was
in part responsible for or was aware of the
activities or omissions of the organization
that brought about this revocation.
If on the other hand a suit for declar-
atory judgment has been timely filed,
contributions from individuals and orga-
nizations described in section 170(c)(2)
that are otherwise allowable will continue
to be deductible. Protection under sec-
tion 7428(c) would begin on September
27, 2024, and would end on the date the
court first determines the organization is
not described in section 170(c)(2) as more
particularly set for in section 7428(c)(1).
For individual contributors, the maximum
deduction protected is $1,000, with a hus-
band and wife treated as one contributor.
This benefit is not extended to any indi-
vidual, in whole or in part, for the acts or
omissions of the organization that were
the basis for revocation.
Name Of OrganizationEffective Date of RevocationLocation
Academy School of Excellence, Inc.1/1/2020Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Bluediimon Foundation, Inc.1/1/2020Desoto, TX.

Bulletin No. 2024–43 i October 21, 2024
Definition of Terms
Revenue rulings and revenue procedures
(hereinafter referred to as “rulings”) that
have an effect on previous rulings use the
following defined terms to describe the
effect:
Amplified describes a situation where
no change is being made in a prior pub-
lished position, but the prior position is
being extended to apply to a variation of
the fact situation set forth therein. Thus,
if an earlier ruling held that a principle
applied to A, and the new ruling holds that
the same principle also applies to B, the
earlier ruling is amplified. (Compare with
modified, below).
Clarified is used in those instances
where the language in a prior ruling is
being made clear because the language
has caused, or may cause, some confu-
sion. It is not used where a position in a
prior ruling is being changed.
Distinguished describes a situation
where a ruling mentions a previously pub-
lished ruling and points out an essential
difference between them.
Modified is used where the substance
of a previously published position is being
changed. Thus, if a prior ruling held that a
principle applied to A but not to B, and the
new ruling holds that it applies to both A
and B, the prior ruling is modified because
it corrects a published position. (Compare
with amplified and clarified, above).
Obsoleted describes a previously pub-
lished ruling that is not considered deter-
minative with respect to future transactions.
This term is most commonly used in a ruling
that lists previously published rulings that
are obsoleted because of changes in laws or
regulations. A ruling may also be obsoleted
because the substance has been included in
regulations subsequently adopted.
Revoked describes situations where the
position in the previously published ruling
is not correct and the correct position is
being stated in a new ruling.
Superseded describes a situation where
the new ruling does nothing more than
restate the substance and situation of a
previously published ruling (or rulings).
Thus, the term is used to republish under
the 1986 Code and regulations the same
position published under the 1939 Code
and regulations. The term is also used
when it is desired to republish in a single
ruling a series of situations, names, etc.,
that were previously published over a
period of time in separate rulings. If the
new ruling does more than restate the sub-
stance of a prior ruling, a combination of
terms is used. For example, modified and
superseded describes a situation where the
substance of a previously published ruling
is being changed in part and is continued
without change in part and it is desired to
restate the valid portion of the previously
published ruling in a new ruling that is
self contained. In this case, the previously
published ruling is first modified and then,
as modified, is superseded.
Supplemented is used in situations in
which a list, such as a list of the names of
countries, is published in a ruling and that
list is expanded by adding further names
in subsequent rulings. After the original
ruling has been supplemented several
times, a new ruling may be published that
includes the list in the original ruling and
the additions, and supersedes all prior rul-
ings in the series.
Suspended is used in rare situations
to show that the previous published rul-
ings will not be applied pending some
future action such as the issuance of new
or amended regulations, the outcome of
cases in litigation, or the outcome of a
Service study.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations in current
use and formerly used will appear in
material published in the Bulletin.
A—Individual.
Acq.—Acquiescence.
B—Individual.
BE—Beneficiary.
BK—Bank.
B.T.A.—Board of Tax Appeals.
C—Individual.
C.B.—Cumulative Bulletin.
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.
CI—City.
COOP—Cooperative.
Ct.D.
—Court Decision.
CY—County.
D—Decedent.
DC—Dummy Corporation.
DE—Donee.
Del. Order—Delegation Order.
DISC—Domestic International Sales Corporation.
DR—Donor.
E—Estate.
EE—Employee.
E.O.—Executive Order.
ER—Employer.
ERISA—Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
EX—Executor.
F—Fiduciary.
FC—Foreign Country.
FICA—Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
FISC—Foreign International Sales Company.
FPH—Foreign Personal Holding Company.
F.R.—Federal Register.
FUTA—Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
FX—Foreign corporation.
G.C.M.—Chief Counsel’s Memorandum.
GE—Grantee.
GP—General Partner.
GR—Grantor.
IC—Insurance Company.
I.R.B.—Internal Revenue Bulletin.
LE—Lessee.
LP—Limited Partner.
LR—Lessor.
M—Minor.
Nonacq.—Nonacquiescence.
O—Organization.
P—Parent Corporation.
PHC—Personal Holding Company.
PO—Possession of the U.S.
PR—Partner.
PRS—Partnership.
PTE—Prohibited Transaction Exemption.
Pub. L.—Public Law.
REIT—Real Estate Investment Trust.
Rev. Proc.—Revenue Procedure.
Rev. Rul.—Revenue Ruling.
S—Subsidiary.
S.P.R.—Statement of Procedural Rules.
Stat.—Statutes at Large.
T—Target Corporation.
T.C.—Tax Court.
T.D.—Treasury Decision.
TFE—Transferee.
TFR—Transferor.
T.I.R.—Technical Information Release.
TP—Taxpayer.
TR—Trust.
TT—Trustee.
U.S.C.—United States Code.
X—Corporation.
Y—Corporation.
Z—Corporation.

October 21, 2024 ii Bulletin No. 2024–43
Numerical Finding List
1
Bulletin 2024–43
Announcements:
2024-26, 2024-27 I.R.B. 14
2024-27, 2024-27 I.R.B. 14
2024-28, 2024-28 I.R.B. 39
2024-29, 2024-29 I.R.B. 71
2024-31, 2024-34 I.R.B. 533
2024-32, 2024-35 I.R.B. 535
2024-30, 2024-36 I.R.B. 581
2024-39, 2024-39 I.R.B. 639
2024-34, 2024-41 I.R.B. 758
2024-35, 2024-43 I.R.B. 1013
Notices:
2024-47, 2024-27 I.R.B. 1
2024-52, 2024-27 I.R.B. 2
2024-53, 2024-27 I.R.B. 4
2024-54, 2024-28 I.R.B. 24
2024-55, 2024-28 I.R.B. 31
2024-56, 2024-29 I.R.B. 64
2024-57, 2024-29 I.R.B. 67
2024-58, 2024-30 I.R.B. 120
2024-59, 2024-32 I.R.B. 348
2024-60, 2024-34 I.R.B. 515
2024-61, 2024-34 I.R.B. 520
2024-62, 2024-36 I.R.B. 570
2024-63, 2024-36 I.R.B. 573
2024-64, 2024-39 I.R.B. 632
2024-65, 2024-39 I.R.B. 633
2024-66, 2024-40 I.R.B. 682
2024-67, 2024-41 I.R.B. 726
2024-68, 2024-41 I.R.B. 729
2024-69, 2024-41 I.R.B. 733
2024-70, 2024-43 I.R.B. 1001
2024-72, 2024-43 I.R.B. 1005
2024-73, 2024-43 I.R.B. 1007
Proposed Regulations:
REG-124593-23, 2024-28 I.R.B. 40
REG-109032-23, 2024-31 I.R.B. 332
REG-120137-19, 2024-31 I.R.B. 336
REG-119283-23, 2024-32 I.R.B. 351
REG-102161-23 2024-33 I.R.B. 502
REG-103529-23, 2024-33 I.R.B. 512
REG-105128-23, 2024-35 I.R.B. 536
REG-108920-24, 2024-38 I.R.B. 607
REG-111629-23, 2024-39 I.R.B. 640
REG-106851-21, 2024-40 I.R.B. 684
REG-116787-23, 2024-40 I.R.B. 709
REG-119683-22, 2024-40 I.R.B. 716
REG-118269-23, 2024-41 I.R.B. 761
REG-112129-23, 2024-42 I.R.B. 787
Revenue Procedures:
2024-26, 2024-27 I.R.B. 7
2024-29, 2024-30 I.R.B. 121
2024-30, 2024-30 I.R.B. 183
2024-27, 2024-31 I.R.B. 300
2024-28, 2024-31 I.R.B. 326
2024-32, 2024-34 I.R.B. 523
2024-34, 2024-38 I.R.B. 604
2024-35, 2024-39 I.R.B. 638
2024-36, 2024-41 I.R.B. 737
2024-37, 2024-41 I.R.B. 755
2024-38, 2024-43 I.R.B. 1010
Revenue Rulings:
2024-13, 2024-28 I.R.B. 18
2024-14, 2024-28 I.R.B. 18
2024-15, 2024-32 I.R.B. 340
2024-16, 2024-35 I.R.B. 534
2024-17, 2024-36 I.R.B. 568
2024-18, 2024-37 I.R.B. 584
2024-20, 2024-40 I.R.B. 646
2024-21, 2024-41 I.R.B. 724
2024-22, 2024-43 I.R.B. 980
2024-23, 2024-43 I.R.B. 981
Treasury Decisions:
10002, 2024-29 I.R.B. 56
9999, 2024-30 I.R.B. 72
10000, 2024-31 I.R.B. 185
10003, 2024-32 I.R.B. 342
10001, 2024-33 I.R.B. 412
10004, 2024-33 I.R.B. 489
9998, 2024-34 I.R.B. 412
10005, 2024-34 I.R.B. 510
9991, 2024-40 I.R.B. 646
10007, 2024-43 I.R.B. 981
1
A cumulative list of all revenue rulings, revenue procedures, Treasury decisions, etc., published in Internal Revenue Bulletins 2024–27 through 2024–52 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin
2024–52, dated December 30, 2024.

Bulletin No. 2024–43 iii October 21, 2024
Finding List of Current Actions on
Previously Published Items
1
Bulletin 2024–43
1
A cumulative list of all revenue rulings, revenue procedures, Treasury decisions, etc., published in Internal Revenue Bulletins 2024–27 through 2024–52 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin
2024–52, dated December 30, 2024.

Internal Revenue Service
Washington, DC 20224
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN
The Introduction at the beginning of this issue describes the purpose and content of this publication. The weekly Internal Revenue
Bulletins are available at www.irs.gov/irb/.
We Welcome Comments About the Internal Revenue Bulletin
If you have comments concerning the format or production of the Internal Revenue Bulletin or suggestions for improving it,
we would be pleased to hear from you. You can email us your suggestions or comments through the IRS Internet Home Page
www.irs.gov) or write to the Internal Revenue Service, Publishing Division, IRB Publishing Program Desk, 1111 Constitution Ave.
NW, IR-6230 Washington, DC 20224.