The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) Executive Rich Fitzgerald recently announced plans to send letters to of all 9,000 properties currently identified as non-government, tax-exempt to demand proof that those properties meet the current five-part test for property tax exemption. Ironically, county legislation passed in 2007 required a systematic review of such exemptions every three years. This systematic review is only one more avenue being pursued by the county and Pittsburgh to collect revenues from nonprofit organizations. This is an on-going effort in Pennsylvania: a "voluntary" payment agreement with colleges and universities (2009) and a payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement with a coalition of nonprofits (in place from at least 2010 through 2012).
In a case of first impression, the New Mexico Appeals Court held that a 60-acre conservation property owned by Pecos River Open Spaces subject to an open space conservation easement granted to the Santa Fe Conservation Trust prohibiting all construction is a “charitable use” exempt from property taxes under Article VIII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution. The County taxing authority (Board) argued that conservation was not a charitable use because “land that is idle, unimproved and not in actual use” has “… no direct and immediate charitable use, and for which the claimed environmental benefit - even if construed to be a charitable purpose - is, at best, remote and consequential.” See below for a similar case with a contrary holding at the Board of Tax Appeal. This case is the first published opinion on property tax exemption for conservation properties since the 1990’s. See Adirondack Land Trust v. Town of Putnam Assessor, 203 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994), for the last such case. For a similar case that considered the term “use,” see Turner v. Trust for Public Land, 445 So. 2d 1124 (Ct. App. Fla. 1984).
The recited facts do not explicitly address public recreational access but the apparent lack of recreational use is important because a handful of trial-level, unpublished opinions identify recreational access as a key factor in determining whether there is any public benefit from conservation of a property. The Court found New Mexico’s “strong public policy encouraging conservation” and the County’s “goal of conservation within its borders” showed that “conservation of land in its natural and undeveloped state generally benefits the public in the context of environmental preservation and beautification of the the State of New Mexico.” Pecos River Open Spaces, Inc. v. County of San Miguel, No. 30,865, slip op., 2013-NMCA-___ (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). Period for appeal still open. State of New Mexico.” Pecos River Open Spaces, Inc. v. County of San Miguel, No. 30,865, slip op., 2013-NMCA-___ (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). The period for appeal still open.
The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) ruled against the New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF) on its appeal of the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Hawley to abate real estate taxes on a 120 acre parcel of forest land bordered on two sides by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Dubuque State Forest located in Hawley and owned by NEFF with a Conservation Restriction. A statute dating back to the 19th century allows personal property of a charitable organization and real estate owned and occupied by the organization for the purposes for which it was organized to be exempt from property taxes. The ATB has repeatedly found that an organization’s charitable exemption status is not dispositive in determining whether its property qualifies for the property tax exemption. The burden of establishing entitlement to the exemption is on the organization. Over the last ten years, the ATB consistently denied exemption either because the organization failed to “provide services to a large or fluid group of beneficiaries or failed to maintain goals and methods that are close to traditional charitable purposes and methods.”
NEFF provided evidence of educational promotion of sustainable forest practices, public access to the property for those wanting to learn more about sustainable forestry, and public access for those wishing to utilize and enjoy the large forested track for cross country skiing, snowmobiling, bird watching, walking and other recreation. The ATB found that NEFF’s education endeavors were insufficient in scope to be considered educational and further that the scope of tree harvesting by NEFF was not a dominant purpose of the non-profit and did not fit traditional charitable activity.
Massachusetts land trusts have maintained that public access, though a laudable goal, is not always in the best interests of the subject properties. Farmers with permanent agricultural restrictions may not want the public to have general access to their lands, and certain protected lands may host endangered or threatened species or provide habitat for such species. Also Massachusetts land trusts argued that the ATB failed to fully comprehend the varied and valuable benefits of protecting land, farmland, forestry land, water resources, etc. The case is expected to be appealed to either the Appeals Court or the Supreme Judicial Court.
This is not an exhaustive inventory of changes, just a few of the highlights, and is not legal, tax or other advice. Please read the Form and the Instructions carefully with your attorney or tax professional. The revised form is dated December 2012 so may affect your year-end closings. Please consult with your attorney regarding effective dates. The IRS last revised Form 8283 in 2006 according to the IRS website.
]]>This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The Land Trust Alliance has no position on the Model Act. However, if adopted, this Act may have significant consequences for land trusts in your state, depending on its current laws. So the first step is to determine whether there are plans to introduce this legislation in your state, in what form and with what (if any) modifications to the Model Act. States need to look carefully at the Model Act’s Commentary too, and understand those provisions that might affect application in a specific state. Then, with the assistance of legal counsel, evaluate your state’s existing laws, the proposed changes that adoption of the Model Act would create, and their implications for your land conservation work; they could be either beneficial or burdensome. You may wish to consult with the state association of nonprofits and the state land trust association. You might consider a coordinated response to the Model Act with other charities and easement holders in your state.
A quick check of the Internet shows that nonprofit groups, media and lawyers are all actively commenting on the Model Act. Here are a few resources and links:
Two recent cases in Pennsylvania litigated the effectiveness of two conservation easements in limiting or prohibiting gas drilling. This is the beginning of a trend of landowners taking these disputes to court and testing the strength of conservation drafting. In one case, the court decided that drilling for gas was “not clearly and unambiguously prohibited by the conservation easement” and denied the easement holder’s motion to dismiss the landowner’s case to drill for natural gas on the protected property. Litigators are concerned that the easement clause did not fully conform to state laws in that case.
Yet in another case around the same time, in a different Pennsylvania court, the judge upheld a conservation easement finding that it unambiguously prohibited horizontal drilling proposed by the successor landowners, and that the purposes of the easement went beyond simply protecting the surface of the protected property.
Clearly drafting the purposes of the conservation easement is as critical as drafting the prohibition. The purposes section should connect the dots for the reader whether the judge, jury, successor landowner, or land trust personnel into the future. The purposes need to state not only what attributes the property has, but how those attributes interrelate and support each other and what makes them so critical to preserve even when powerful economic drivers or successor landowner free use of their land for permitted purposes pose significant challenges.
Fracking uses large quantities of water at high pressures to fracture geological barriers to gas extraction. Combined with horizontal drilling, the use of explosives, and the addition of proprietary chemicals and particulates, fracking is now an extremely effective method of releasing gas from deposits that were previously considered unviable, such as deposits in shale, tight sand, and coal beds. Further, tax issues may arise when landowners seek to profit from property that was donated as a tax-deductible charitable contribution (as is further detailed in the guide to financial management below). See the document on forced pooling statutes below to see the rules in your state.
Developers first used modern fracking techniques in the Barnett Shale in Fort Worth, Texas. The technology was so successful that it has inspired development projects in Pennsylvania, New York, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Colorado, and Wyoming, to name only a few. In these states, severed mineral rights that were previously considered a minimal risk to conservation may change the easement property significantly and lead to requests for amendment or extinguishment (as was seen in Hicks v. Dowd). See the maps below to see if your area is a candidate for fracking development.
View a map of shale gas resources in the lower 48 states.
View pooling statutes by state.
A resource collection on The Learning Center's Conservation Defense Clearinghouse assists conservation organizations to make informed decisions regarding hydrofracking and coalbed methane extraction projects on conserved property. The collection contains resources to help land trusts determine what their local development issues may be, information on legal issues related to oil and gas projects, and examples of how others have worked with these issues. These resources include:
Participating land trusts pay an annual fee of $60 per property and are covered for up to $500,000 in legal fees annually to defend their easements and conserved lands. The response from land trusts has been positive. Almost 500 land trusts have signed up 18,500 properties for Terrafirma coverage already. You can still commit! The one-time registration fee to join Terrafirma increases 28% on December 31, 2012. If your land trust commits to participate before then you can take advantage of the lower Founder’s discounted registration fee. View the commitment letter.
You also can start to complete your application on-line now. The Terrafirma website has lots of information and an online application. The first-time sign up process is detailed, but once you sign in once, you can save your progress and make changes as needed. So you’ll want to get started on it soon - having your information prepared and ready when the time comes to submit details and pay your premium by February 1, 2013 will help avoid confusion and delays next year.
Before Terrafirma can issue policies, participating land trusts also will need to formally verify that at least 16,000 properties from fully eligible land trusts will be insured. Terrafirma has received a favorable determination letter from the IRS and requires nothing further. We are grateful to the team at Sullivan & Cromwell for guiding the tax-exemption application through the IRS. We have also raised $1.44 million toward the $1.5 million goal to fund the first five years of the costs in relation to start-up operations and loss prevention services.
Terrafirma has also been in the news. A New York Times article highlighting conservation defense challenges also headlined the new land trust collaborative defense service. Other papers and radio stations have been running excerpts of the Times article.
At the moment 467 land trusts holding 18,544 units of property have paid their fee and committed to join Terrafirma, provided that startup occurs by December 31, 2013. Of those 18,544 units, we currently have informal confirmation that 16,031 units are fully qualified by virtue of being held by accredited land trusts, or non-accredited land trusts having self-verified informal satisfaction of the eligibility criteria.
Many thanks to all of the board, staff, funders and advisors that made this possible, and to the hundreds of participating land trusts and the thousands of land trust leaders working together to help each other. Hundreds of generous people contributed their time to creating Terrafirma including all the western pioneers who first thought of the idea a decade or more ago. Thank you to these pioneers who opened a door through important research, setting the stage for the conservation defense insurance service:
Generous individual and foundations also contributed to feasibility expenses and to costs of operations. These funders donated the over four million dollars in cash required as capital for Terrafirma.
Terrafirma authorized the outside consultant to complete the required regulatory filings in 49 states and D.C. in order to offer this special conservation coverage to land trusts and they completed all of the registrations. We will pilot a comprehensive risk management curriculum at Rally. Then, in early 2013, immediately prior to the formal commencement of operations, Terrafirma will verify sufficient eligible properties actually insured and paid (at least 16,000 eligible properties) and issue the Commencement of Operations Certificate, permitting as a corporate matter Terrafirma to commence insurance operations. Then Marsh will issue the policies and paperwork necessary for land trusts to be Terrafirma members.
The Terrafirma Members Committee (view regional map) and the Claims Committee members (view bios) have been appointed. The Terrafirma form of insurance policy and the Claims Procedures are also available to view. Lorraine Barrett joined the Alliance on May 3 as our first conservation defense coordinator. Lorri will assist with all aspects of conservation defense, including Terrafirma. Lorri practiced law in a litigation firm in Alexandria, Virginia, and has her JD from William & Mary Law School.
The Nonprofit Center for Risk Management Executive Director Melanie Herman wrote the risk management curriculum. This is an integral component to Terrafirma’s success. All land trusts can reduce risk exposure and manage necessary risk better through implementing the tools and techniques in this curriculum.
Donors still must obtain a lender subordination to the entire conservation easement, including the payment on extinguishment clause, and record it at the same time as the conservation easement despite this new ruling.
The IRS lost two significant recent cases that deal with historic preservation easements but have important implications for all conservation easements as well. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed taxpayers—and the entire preservation and conservation communities—another big victory in Kaufman v. Commissioner (US Court of Appeals 1st Circuit, Nos. 11-2017, 11-2022, July 19, 2012). Similarly in Scheidelman v. Commissioner the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a controversial Tax Court decision supporting the IRS interpretation of substantiation requirements.
But this is not a time for complacency. The IRS and the Tax Court have warned us that failure to follow all of the rules can result in very unpleasant consequences. Donors and land trusts must still pay attention to details and not hastily suspend recently adopted new practices regarding deduction substantiation or become lax or lazy in continuing to implement sound practices to help landowners understand their obligations in these highly technical transactions.
And in spite of another recent Tax Court case, Averyt v. Commissioner (see below), holding against the IRS an another issue, all land trusts should send the “gift” letter. The Alliance has sample letters and other relevant information on contemporaneous written acknowledgement (gift) letters.
The Alliance has a special collection of documents that includes information on this most recent developments in case law, as well as samples of mortgage subordination language, practical pointers and fact sheets, articles, summaries and full text versions of the cases, and a copy of the regulations regarding mortgage subordination at. Log in to The Learning Center first and then paste the address in your browser if you are not automatically directed to the collection.
The First Circuit reviewed three main points in its Kaufman opinion:
The First Circuit focused on the IRS’ interpretation of the Treasury regulations and whether easement-holding organizations must have a priority interest to insurance and condemnation proceeds in the event the easement property is destroyed or condemned. The court rejected the IRS’s interpretation, finding that such an interpretation would “doom practically all donations of easements” and was contrary to the purpose of the statute that Congress intended.
The second issue related to whether the easement holder’s discretion to consent to changes to the property or abandon the easement failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement that easements must prevent uses that are inconsistent with the preservation of the property. This issue was squarely addressed in Simmons, and the court found that easement holding organizations must be allowed flexibility in the oversight of their easements, and that abandonment of the easement was a remote possibility, one that the IRS could directly control in its regulation of tax-exempt organizations.
The court stated that Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(1) “nowhere suggests the stringent outcome that the IRS seeks to ascribe to it and the consequences of the reading would be to deprive the done organization of flexibility to deal with remote contingencies.”
The final issue addressed was the technical noncompliance of the appraisal summary submitted by the donor. By focusing on the minor deficiencies of the appraisal summary, the court stated that the IRS, in avoiding the valuation issues, was attempting to “convert an inherently factual issue into a set of violations of the procedural requirements [of the regulations] … in disregard of their language and purpose.” The court applied the substantial compliance doctrine to numerous minor omissions by the Kaufmans in their Form 8283 filing, as well as the appraisal and the appraisal summary, stating “we can hardly agree with the IRS that these defects, in no way prejudicial to it in this instance, doom the appraisal summary.”
The First Circuit’s decision overturned the Tax Court’s interpretation of the Treasury regulations in Kaufman v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 294 (2011). However, because the Tax Court based its decision not to impose further penalties on the Kaufmans on the understanding that the deduction failed for technical reasons, the court vacated the penalties decision as well. The court returned the case to the Tax Court to address the valuation issue and reconsider the penalties.
The court specifically addressed the IRS’s concern about abusive appraisals, but said that using technicalities to deny deductions rather than addressing the legitimacy of valuation was not acceptable. The court did express skepticism about the actual valuation, as well as any significant economic difference between existing zoning and preservation laws and the façade easement restrictions, but left that to the Tax Court to determine after it reexamines the case. Following the trend of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Scheidelman decision reported last month, the court said that the IRS cannot avoid litigating valuation by relying on non-prejudicial technical errors in reporting.
Nevertheless the court expressed some understanding for the IRS’s approach:
Doubtless it is the desire to avoid such trials, as well as the difficulty of detecting and investigating suspicious cases one by one, that explains the IRS's aggressive legal positions in this case. And, despite our rejection of those particular positions, we do not question the IRS's concern, transcending this case, that individuals and organizations have been abusing the conservation statute ‘to improperly shield income or assets from taxation.
Such language from the Court may have broader implications for conservation generally and IRS interpretation of at least the present Treasury regulations.
However, to reject overly aggressive IRS interpretations of existing regulations is hardly to disarm the IRS. Without stifling Congress' aim to encourage legitimate easements, one can imagine IRS regulations that require appraisers to be functionally independent of donee organizations, curtail dubious deductions in historic districts where local regulations already protect against alterations, and require more specific market-sale based information to support any deduction. Forward looking regulations also serve to give fair warning to taxpayers.
Just four days before the Second Circuit’s decision on the appeal in Scheidelman, the Tax Court decided a similar case (Rothman v. Commissioner, US Tax Court, T.C. Memo. 2012-163, June 11, 2012). In Rothman, the Tax Court rejected the appraisal for the same reasons that it rejected the appraisal in Scheidelman. The Second Circuit’s reversal of the Scheidelman decision four days after the Rothman decision caused the Rothmans to move for reconsideration of the Tax Court’s analysis. On July 31, 2012, the Tax Court issued a revised opinion that narrowly applied the Second Circuit’s holding in Scheidelman, reversing only the two points that explicitly overlapped the two cases and declining to reverse any other point.
In Averyt v. Commissioner, the Tax Court determined that, under the specific facts, the conservation easement satisfied Code Sec. 170(f)(8) and qualified as a contemporaneous written acknowledgment. This is a rare occurrence. Averyt was a taxpayer victory but we haven’t heard from the IRS what they think about it so for the foreseeable future, everyone should still send a separate gift letter and not rely on satisfying this code requirement in any other way.
Nationally respected tax attorney and conservationist Steve Small says, “these three recent decisions are very important to the land trust community. They break what has mostly been an IRS winning streak in court, and that is important by itself. Scheidelman and Kaufman deliver a message to IRS that, among other things, the Service should stop relying on ‘technicalities’ to defeat easement gifts and start arguing about valuation. In addition, these two decisions, and Averyt, may, or may not, change IRS audit strategy, and it may be easier for taxpayers to settle cases rather than fighting all the way to Tax Court. But that still remains to be seen. And don’t rely on Averyt. As our button said at Rally a few years ago, ‘Send the damn gift letter.’ These may be good cases for easement donors, but there is no excuse for not following ALL the rules, to the letter. We know what the rules are; get it right!”
It remains to be seen how the IRS will deal with these Circuit Court of Appeals decisions that directly contradict the IRS approach to easement tax code compliance.
]]>The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Scheidelman v. Commissioner, No. 10-3587, 2nd Cir. Ct. Appeals on an appeal of the Tax Court ruling in Scheidelman v. Commissioner, 100 TCM (2010) held that:
On March 24, 2003, Huda T. Scheidelman completed an application to donate a conservation easement on the façade of her historic Brooklyn brownstone. The National Architectural Trust required an initial deposit of $1,000 with the application and an additional donation of $9,275 upon completion of the appraisal and acceptance of the easement. Ms. Scheidelman sent the money and, on June 23, 2004, the Trust completed a Form 8283 acknowledging the easement contribution. The form was then sent to Ms. Scheidelman with a thank-you letter stating that she had received “no goods or services in return.”
Ms. Scheidelman claimed tax deductions for her contribution in 2004, 2005 and 2006. In March of 2008, the Commissioner mailed notice to Ms. Scheidelman of a deficiency in those years as a result of disallowance of her deductions. Ms. Scheidelman filed a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination. In her petition, she also requested an additional deduction for the $9,275 contribution in 2003. After hearing the case, the Tax Court eliminated the penalties but denied all deductions. Ms. Scheidelman appealed.
Despite the opinion in Scheidelman, conservation organizations should continue to be wary of the risk that the IRS will deny a deduction for a mandatory contribution. The court’s decision that a cash contribution (even a mandatory one) that serves to fund the administration of another charitable donation is likewise an “unrequited gift” is a positive development in case law on charitable donation deductions. However, prudent conservation organizations know to ”request” contributions and should not change their practice until this area of law has fully evolved, all the circuits have accepted the opinion of the Second Circuit and the IRS has confirmed their acceptance of the ruling.
The IRS has stated in the past that tying a stewardship contribution to actual stewardship costs is not fatal to deductibility. Rather, it is a percentage fee that is most problematic for the IRS when reviewing stewardship contributions. The IRS concerns about actual stewardship costs could prompt greater scrutiny if the amount requested is either disproportionately high relative to actual cost or if the amount is directly tied to tax benefits. Conservation organizations should continue to exercise prudence in seeking donations to fund stewardship administration and defense.
A broad coalition of dozens of conservation organizations, including The Land Trust Alliance, established a significant precedent for conservation in Colorado. Rob Bleiberg, Bill Prakken, Diana Cort, Ilana Moir and all the folks at Mesa Land Trust did a terrific job on this matter, as did their legal team of Allan Beezley, Peter Nichols, Bob Trout, with Peter as the lead attorney on the appeal, Melinda Beck as the lead attorney on the two amicus briefs, Larry Kueter who testified at the trial and helped on the strategy throughout, Amy Beatie, Zach Smith, Chris Mills, Steve Imig on the amicus brief, Marie Vicek on the briefs and trial preparation, Bill Silberstein, Andy Hamano and the Land Trust Alliance team, who helped on strategy.
We can accomplish great things for conservation permanence working together. If your land trust has not committed to participate in Terrafirma yet, you still have time. Check the information on the website or call:
Leslie Ratley-Beach
Conservation Defense Director
Land Trust Alliance
802-262-6051 | lrbeach@lta.org
The conservation easement prohibits, among other activities, the following: (a)“industrial or commercial uses of any kind… except home occupations,” (b) “commercial mining and/or quarrying of any kind. However, quarrying for the personal use of the Grantee … shall be permitted,” (c) “depositing, dumping, abandoning, or release of any solid waste or debris, or liquid wastes or chemical substances … except … fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides,” and (d) “New roads, except to provide low-impact temporary access to logging.”
In 2002, the Stockport Mountain Corporation LLC (Stockport) bought the 2,000-acre protected property from Stockport Forest Preservation, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, the easement holder. Several years later, Stockport sought Norcross’s approval of a natural gas hydrofracture drilling lease. Stockport claimed the lease would affect only five acres of the protected property. Norcross denied approval, and Stockport sued.
In a memorandum opinion (Stockport Mountain Corporation LLC v. Norcross Wildlife Foundation, Inc., No. 3:11cv514 (M.D. Pa. March 1, 2012)), the court denied Norcross’ claim that the proposed drilling lease clearly violated four provisions of the conservation easement and therefore the complaint should be dismissed without further argument. First, the court held that the purpose provision, in and of itself, was too vague and subjective to prohibit drilling. Next, the court held that the terms “commercial” and “industrial” were not defined in the easement, and that other sections of the easement allow certain such uses, thus creating enough ambiguity to survive the motion to dismiss. Similarly, the court held that it was ambiguous whether the release of chemicals below the surface of the protected property, as opposed to on or above the surface, is prohibited by the easement. Finally, the court found that Stockport’s contention that the drilling activities would use existing roads and that new roads would be “largely unnecessary,” was enough to show an ambiguity about whether the roads restriction of the easement would be violated. The court found that at this stage of the proceedings it was premature to say that the gas lease is clearly and unambiguously prohibited by the conservation easement.
The court elaborated on ambiguities in “crucial provisions” that would require further discovery to resolve. For example, in interpreting the easement’s purpose to protect the property from “occurrences which might interfere with the Property’s Conservation Values,” the court said that the conservation values “are not known at this time as they are not attached as an exhibit to the complaint” (which included the conservation easement as an exhibit).
The court also suggested that ambiguity was created by “the conservation easement’s express approval of many activities that are contrary to its purpose, such as allowing limited timbering, quarrying, ATV/snowmobile use and the construction of four residences.” Norcross pointed to the Pennsylvania conservation easement enabling statute’s provision that “conservation or preservation easements shall be liberally construed in favor of the grants contained therein to affect the purpose of those easements and the policy and purpose of this act,” but the court did not credit this argument.
Although conservationists hope, and assume, that Norcross will eventually prevail, it will now have to spend time, effort and funds on discovery and further litigation proceedings. Easement drafters should review their templates to see how they would stack up against this court’s interpretations. Some drafting suggestions include:
Please feel free to call or write to the representative in your region for anything relating to Terrafirma, or write or call Leslie Ratley-Beach, Land Trust Alliance Conservation Defense Director at lrbeach@lta.org or 802-262-6051.
Land trusts must respond affirmatively to 13 eligibility questions to participate in Terrafirma. Accredited land trusts are automatically eligible. The Alliance has practical suggestions and solutions to common difficulties in the eligibility details information piece.
Want a dollar discount on each Terrafirma Premium? A webinar on key concepts in risk management for land trusts on April 10 and 12, 3:00-4:00 pm ET fulfills the requirements for the Terrafirma insurance dollar off discount on each property premium only if the attendee is a member of the land trust’s board of directors, senior management or departmental director. Participants should attend one session only.
Conference: 1-888-450-5996
Participant Code: 933095 Login: http://landtrustalliance.adobeconnect.com/terrafirma
Remember that the base premium before any discounts is $60 per property. Accredited land trusts automatically receive an $11 discount. Discounts are also available for land trusts that meet certain good practices. View the Terms and Conditions for more details.
If you have not looked at the application and insurance policy, they are available on the Alliance website, and the summary explains the various sections. If you have any questions or comments please call or write to me.