Frank Phillips is reporting that not only did Gabriel Gomez use a shady historical home tax deduction agreeing not to alter the his home’s facade even though Cohasset already places similar restrictions on historical properties but Gomez also shopped around for the highest appraisal. It seems that Gomez rejected appraisals if he didn’t like the value, further still, Gomez didn’t even pay the bill for those appraisals.
When Republican US Senate nominee Gabriel E. Gomez was seeking a lucrative historical tax deduction for his Cohasset home, he rejected the first appraisal he received because it was too low and then refused to pay the appraiser’s bill, according to a claim filed this week.
That appraiser, Shaun Fitzgerald, said Gomez hired him in late 2005 to determine the amount he could deduct on his federal tax return in exchange for agreeing not to alter the home’s facade. But Fitzgerald said Gomez then failed to pay the $1,000 appraiser’s fee.
The appraisal amount? A measly $245,640.
Apparently, that’s not what Gomez was looking for. Note to appraisers you need to value the home exactly how Gomez wants you to value it or you don’t get paid.
After being granted the easement and tax deduction Gomez had work done on the exterior of the property anyway, it seems that the easement agreement for the tax deduction only covers areas that is visible from the street. Cohasset’s historical commission does get involved in the approval on any changes to the home. Gomez didn’t seemed to to have any issues getting approvals even though the renovation included the removal of “character-defining elements” of the historical home.
That construction included removal of a brick chimney, one of the two on the house. A survey commissioned by the Trust in August 2005 to evaluate the historic significance of the home had determined that the chimneys were “important character-defining elements’’ of the property.
Gomez’s wife Sarah serves on the Cohasset Historical Commission.
Under the terms of the easement, either the Historical Commission or the NAT could say “no” to that. His wife’s on the Historical Commission and they said it’s OK. My thought all along is that the DC-based group couldn’t be counted on to enforce the easement strictly. And sure enough they don’t show up in court and say, “Halt!”
As I mentioned before, I have been involved with non-profits who use conservations easements, primarily to keep land undeveloped. In the 80s, they were seen as a panacea, something that would keep large tracts of land as open space creating a wn-win situation. The view at the time was that it was more affordable for the protection group and beneficial for the home-owner. Enforcement of easements are problematic for legitimate non-profits. A friend involved in land acquisition tld me a few years ago that he had come full circle. He had gone from believeing that easements were the best way to go, to avoiding them as much as possible. I’m digressing, but in and of itself, easements are not bad things when used properly. All evidence makes it look like the NAT’s main interest was tax deductions.
I have no problem with an easement if it’s properly done and enforced. I have no problem with a deduction if there’s a real decrease in value as a result of the easement.
I have a big problem with a massive income tax deduction for a largely superfluous easement that the former NAT didn’t even enforce when Gomez wanted to rip out a chimney the NAT itself called important to its designation of the house as historic. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and now we learn he doesn’t even pay his plumbers.
One has to wonder whether the local historical commission would have been as receptive to the changes desired by the Gomezes if Susan Gomez (his wife) had not been a member.
the Gomezes took the position that the chimney’s location was such that they didn’t even have to go before this historical commission. That the historical commission didn’t object in any way to the construction may be due to her seat on it.
They did go to the Trust, which signed off after having cited the chimneys as important factors in the home’s historic character just a year earlier. So much for strict enforcement there. If the non-profit is not going to enforce its easement, the argument that the home really did drop in value becomes even more tenuous.