PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10510 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10510 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10510 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10510 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-21 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would give special tax-dispute relief to taxpayers who claimed deductions for certain conservation easement donations—donations involving conservation restrictions on land—made before December 30, 2022. It would limit additional tax assessments and penalties, reduce some liabilities, and repay certain amounts from already resolved cases. It would also establish favorable presumptions for taxpayers’ property appraisals and protect certain agreements addressing improvements made after a donation. These are proposed changes, not evidence of enacted law.
The term covered transaction means any syndicated conservation easement transaction, as described in Internal Revenue Service Notice 2017–10, with respect to which a deduction was claimed for a contribution made before December 30, 2022.
the amount of any deficiency, penalty, or interest determined with respect to such transaction shall be reduced by not less than 80 percent
the Secretary shall provide to the taxpayer (in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate under subsection (a)) an amount equal to the excess (if any)
there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the value of any conservation easement (and the fair market value of the property) as determined by a qualified appraisal (within the meaning of subsection (f)(11)(E)) conducted on behalf of the taxpayer is accurate
A conservation purpose shall not fail to be treated as being protected in perpetuity for purposes of clause (i) merely because of any provision of an agreement relating to the treatment of post-donation improvements for purposes of the calculation of extinguishment proceeds with respect to such easement.
Section 1 names the proposal the Conservation Easement Resolution and Integrity Act of 2026, or CERI Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Conservation Easement Resolution and Integrity Act of 2026 or the CERI Act of 2026.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Treasury Secretary or a designee would have to establish a dispute-resolution program in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, establish the Conservation Easement Resolution Program to provide for the resolution of any dispute relating to a covered transaction.
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Treasury or the designee of such Secretary.
The program would cover syndicated conservation easement transactions described in Internal Revenue Service Notice 2017–10 when a deduction was claimed for a contribution made before December 30, 2022. Covered disputes include audits, examinations, enforcement actions, and litigation.
The term covered transaction means any syndicated conservation easement transaction, as described in Internal Revenue Service Notice 2017–10, with respect to which a deduction was claimed for a contribution made before December 30, 2022.
The term dispute means an audit, examination, enforcement action, or litigation.
From enactment until the program is established, Treasury could not initiate a covered dispute. The legal time limits for covered disputes would also pause during that interval.
During the period beginning on the date on the enactment of this section and ending on the date on which the Secretary establishes the program under subsection (a)— (1) the Secretary may not initiate a dispute with respect to any covered transaction, and (2) the statute of limitations with respect to any dispute relating to a covered transaction shall be tolled.
For the program, a qualified easement must remain effective, retain its conservation purpose without material impairment, and cover land still serving a conservation purpose. Its holder must be a qualified organization actively monitoring compliance.
The term qualified easement means a conservation easement arising from a covered transaction that meets the following requirements: (A) The easement remains in effect. (B) The conservation purpose of the easement has not been materially impaired. (C) The land subject to the easement continues to serve a conservation purpose. (D) The donee organization holding the easement is a qualified organization (as defined in section 170(h)(3) of such Code) and is actively monitoring compliance with the easement terms.
For covered qualified easements, Treasury generally could not assess additional tax owed or penalties. Exceptions concern an ineligible recipient at donation, lack of permanent protection or material conservation impairment, failure to obtain and attach a required qualified appraisal, knowing participation in fraud, or a gross valuation misstatement under the cited tax provision. A separate provision would still prohibit penalties under three specified tax-code sections.
in the case of a covered transaction relating to a qualified easement, the Secretary may not assess any deficiency or penalty unless— (i) the donee organization was not a qualified organization under section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 at the time of the contribution, (ii) the conservation easement was not granted in perpetuity or the conservation purpose has been materially impaired, (iii) the taxpayer failed to obtain and attach a qualified appraisal as required by section 170(f)(11) of such Code, (iv) the taxpayer knowingly participated in a fraudulent transaction, or (v) the claimed value of such transaction constitutes a gross valuation misstatement (as defined in section 6662(h)(2) of such Code)
no penalties may be imposed under sections 6662, 6662A, or 6663 of such Code.
For covered easements that do not meet the program’s qualified-easement definition but substantially preserve their conservation purposes, additional tax owed, penalties, and interest would be reduced by at least 80 percent.
in the case of a covered transaction relating to an easement which is not a qualified easement but with respect to which the conservation purposes are substantially preserved, the amount of any deficiency, penalty, or interest determined with respect to such transaction shall be reduced by not less than 80 percent
The proposed fraud-evidence rule would require direct, documented evidence of the taxpayer’s own intentional and willful conduct. Negligence, recklessness, or knowledge merely attributed to the taxpayer would not suffice. Another person’s conduct could count only if the taxpayer actually knew about and willfully participated in it. The rule contains an inconsistent cross-reference, described in the limitations.
For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(i), a determination of knowing participation in a fraudulent transaction— (A) may only be established by direct, documented evidence of the taxpayer's own intentional and willful conduct, (B) may not be based on constructive knowledge, negligence, recklessness, or the conduct of any promoter, advisor, or other third party unless the taxpayer had actual knowledge of, and willfully participated in, such conduct
A finding of knowing participation in fraud could not rest solely or primarily on technical noncompliance, including disclosure failures, valuation-method differences, reliance on a qualified appraisal, or departure from administrative guidance later invalidated under the Administrative Procedure Act.
may not be based solely or primarily on technical or mechanical non-compliance, including any failure to satisfy disclosure or reporting requirements, differences in valuation methodology, reliance on a qualified appraisal, or any deviation from administrative guidance later invalidated under the Administrative Procedure Act.
A covered proceeding in a United States court that began before enactment would have to pause if any party requested it. The pause would last until a final disposition under the program relating to that proceeding.
Any proceeding in a Court of the United States which began before the date of the enactment of this section relating to a covered transaction shall be stayed upon motion of any party until a final disposition relating to such proceeding occurs under subsection (a).
For covered cases finally resolved before enactment, Treasury would have to pay taxpayers the amount, if any, by which previously paid additional tax, penalties, and interest exceeded what the proposed settlement rules would impose.
In the case of a covered transaction with respect to which a final disposition was reached before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the taxpayer (in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate under subsection (a)) an amount equal to the excess (if any) of— (1) the amount of any penalty, deficiency, or interest paid by the taxpayer under such final disposition, over (2) the amount of any penalty, deficiency, or interest which would be imposed with respect to such taxpayer under subsection (c) if such case had not reached a final disposition before such date.
For covered transactions, the taxpayer’s qualified appraisal of the easement and property would be presumed accurate. That presumption could be overcome only with clear and convincing evidence.
In the case of any covered transaction, for purposes of this section and such Code— (1) there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the value of any conservation easement (and the fair market value of the property) as determined by a qualified appraisal conducted on behalf of the taxpayer is accurate, (2) the burden of proof in rebutting such presumption shall be clear and convincing evidence
To challenge that appraisal presumption for a covered transaction, Treasury would have to produce its own qualified appraisal explaining its methods, comparable sales, and assumptions. It would also have to analyze the taxpayer’s identified highest and best use—the use selected for valuation—and explain any different use it selected.
the Secretary may not contest such presumption unless the Secretary produces a qualified appraisal which includes— (A) a detailed explanation of the methodology of such appraisal, (B) comparable sales data, (C) a full description of each assumption upon which such appraisal is based, and (D) an analysis of the highest and best use identified in the qualified appraisal described in paragraph (1), including, if the appraisal produced by the Secretary applies a different highest and best use, a detailed explanation of the basis for such difference.
Section 2(g), titled as removing net-worth restrictions on costs and certain fees, would direct that prevailing-party determinations for covered transactions disregard a specified tax-code subparagraph. The referenced statutory text is not supplied, so the precise change to fee eligibility cannot be established from this bundle.
(g) Costs and certain fees awarded without regard to net worth Any determination of whether any party is a prevailing party for purposes of section 7530(c)(4) of such Code relating to a covered transaction shall be made without regard to subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
Taxpayers who filed Form 8886 for a covered transaction, including through someone acting for them, would conclusively be treated as having acted in good faith and without actual knowledge of fraud. Treasury could not use the filing as evidence of fraud or abusive participation, or to deny, reduce, or delay relief under the program.
In the case of any covered transaction with respect to which a taxpayer filed (or caused to be filed on the taxpayer’s behalf) a Form 8886— (1) such taxpayer shall be conclusively presumed to have acted in good faith and without actual knowledge that the transaction was fraudulent, (2) the Secretary shall not use such filing as evidence of fraud, knowledge of fraud, participation in an abusive transaction, or as grounds to deny, reduce, or delay any relief, settlement, or refund available under this section with respect to such transaction
Compliance with the specified Form 8886 disclosure requirements could not be the sole or primary basis for initiating or maintaining an audit, examination, enforcement action, or penalty for a covered transaction. A timely filing would also have to count as mitigating evidence in administrative or court proceedings about fraud, penalties, interest, or valuation.
no audit, examination, enforcement action, or penalty may be initiated or sustained relating to such transaction solely or primarily on the basis of a taxpayer’s compliance with Form 8886 disclosure requirements related to Notice 2017–10 (or any substantially similar guidance later invalidated under the Administrative Procedure Act)
in any administrative or judicial proceeding, the timely filing of such Form 8886 shall constitute mitigating evidence with respect to any determination of fraud, penalties, interest, or valuation disputes relating to such transaction.
Section 3 would require conservation purposes to be protected permanently. An agreement addressing improvements made after donation when calculating proceeds from ending an easement would not, by itself, defeat that requirement.
A contribution shall not be treated as exclusively for conservation purposes unless the conservation purpose is protected in perpetuity.
A conservation purpose shall not fail to be treated as being protected in perpetuity for purposes of clause (i) merely because of any provision of an agreement relating to the treatment of post-donation improvements for purposes of the calculation of extinguishment proceeds with respect to such easement.
The section 3 change concerning proceeds from ending an easement would apply retroactively to transactions entered into after December 31, 2009.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to transactions entered into after December 31, 2009.
Section 4 would separately add an appraisal presumption to the conservation-contribution provisions of the tax code, without limiting it to the settlement program’s covered transactions. A taxpayer’s qualified appraisal would be presumed accurate, and rebuttal would require clear and convincing evidence.
Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: (8) Valuation For purposes of this subsection— (A) there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the value of any conservation easement (and the fair market value of the property) as determined by a qualified appraisal (within the meaning of subsection (f)(11)(E)) conducted on behalf of the taxpayer is accurate, (B) the burden of proof in rebutting such presumption shall be clear and convincing evidence
Under section 4, Treasury could challenge the appraisal presumption only by producing a qualified appraisal detailing its methodology, comparable sales, and every assumption.
the Secretary may not contest such presumption unless the Secretary produces a qualified appraisal (within such meaning) which includes— (i) a detailed explanation of the methodology of such appraisal, (ii) comparable sales data, and (iii) a full description of each assumption upon which such appraisal is based.
Property valuation for qualified conservation contributions, including covered transactions, would have to consider the property’s highest and best use under generally accepted appraisal standards. Potential mineral extraction, mining, quarrying, oil and gas development, and other mineral-rights development would be included when physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.
For purposes of determining the fair market value of any property subject to a qualified conservation contribution (including for purposes of any covered transaction under the Conservation Easement Resolution and Integrity Act of 2026), the highest and best use of such property shall be taken into account in accordance with generally accepted appraisal standards (including the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice), include potential uses for mineral extraction, mining, quarrying, oil and gas development, or other development of mineral rights where such use is physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive.
Treasury would have to submit an implementation report within one year after enactment and annually thereafter for five years. Reports would go to the House Ways and Means and Agriculture committees and the Senate Finance and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry committees.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 5 years, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report on the implementation of this Act
Reports would count applicants and settlements; total the additional tax, penalties, and interest not imposed; explain refusals to offer the prescribed settlement terms; and report the number of cases receiving payments for previously resolved disputes and the aggregate amount paid. Reports would also include any recommendations for legislative or administrative improvements. The applicant-breakdown instruction contains an unclear cross-reference.
(1) the number of taxpayers who have applied for relief under the program established under section 2(a), disaggregated by covered transactions described by paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c) of such section, (2) the number of settlements reached, the aggregate amounts of deficiencies, penalties, and interest which were not imposed by reason of section 2, (3) the number of cases in which the Secretary refused to offer settlement terms consistent with section 2(c), and the basis for each such refusal, (4) the number of cases with respect to which a payment was made under section 2(e) and the aggregate amount of such payments, and (5) any recommendations for legislative or administrative changes to improve the effectiveness of this Act.
The National Taxpayer Advocate would review each report and send the same committees comments, findings, and recommendations, including instances of inadequate protection of taxpayer rights concerning qualified easements. The definition reference in this instruction is inconsistent with the supplied text.
The National Taxpayer Advocate shall review each report submitted under subsection (a) and shall submit to the committees described in such subsection comments, findings, and recommendations with respect to the implementation of this Act, including any instances in which the rights of taxpayers under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights have not been adequately protected with respect to a qualified easement (as defined in section 2(h)(2)).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on September 21, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T18:00:52Z. 2026-09-21: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-09-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-21. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; absent disclosures and accompanying materials, it does not establish formal earmark status elsewhere.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains narrow tax-relief provisions and special exceptions tied to particular transactions or filing circumstances. Their identification does not establish improper purpose.
Taxpayers with the specified pre-December 30, 2022 syndicated conservation easement contributions would receive special settlement treatment. This includes at least an 80 percent liability reduction for nonqualified easements whose conservation purposes remain substantially preserved, and payments for qualifying cases already finally resolved. These benefits are central to the proposal’s relief policy.
The term covered transaction means any syndicated conservation easement transaction, as described in Internal Revenue Service Notice 2017–10, with respect to which a deduction was claimed for a contribution made before December 30, 2022.
in the case of a covered transaction relating to an easement which is not a qualified easement but with respect to which the conservation purposes are substantially preserved, the amount of any deficiency, penalty, or interest determined with respect to such transaction shall be reduced by not less than 80 percent
In the case of a covered transaction with respect to which a final disposition was reached before the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the taxpayer (in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate under subsection (a)) an amount equal to the excess (if any) of— (1) the amount of any penalty, deficiency, or interest paid by the taxpayer under such final disposition, over (2) the amount of any penalty, deficiency, or interest which would be imposed with respect to such taxpayer under subsection (c) if such case had not reached a final disposition before such date.
Within the covered-transaction group, Form 8886 filers would receive a special conclusive presumption of good faith and lack of actual knowledge of fraud. This goes beyond ordinary access to the settlement program by prescribing favorable treatment of a particular subset of taxpayers.
In the case of any covered transaction with respect to which a taxpayer filed (or caused to be filed on the taxpayer’s behalf) a Form 8886— (1) such taxpayer shall be conclusively presumed to have acted in good faith and without actual knowledge that the transaction was fraudulent
Conservation contributors with agreements addressing post-donation improvements in proceeds from ending an easement would receive a narrow exception to disqualification on permanence grounds. The exception would apply to transactions after December 31, 2009, and directly relates to the bill’s conservation-deduction policy.
A conservation purpose shall not fail to be treated as being protected in perpetuity for purposes of clause (i) merely because of any provision of an agreement relating to the treatment of post-donation improvements for purposes of the calculation of extinguishment proceeds with respect to such easement.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to transactions entered into after December 31, 2009.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI