The minerals are valued at the same price per unit as the owner has sold and continues to sell commercially in the ordinary course of business. We have procured exclusive, below market terms for the bulk purchase.

Each year, in early December an appraisal is completed by a qualified 3rd party.   A full copy of the qualified appraisal will be made available to each donor to keep for their personal records.

Click Here to View the recently completed 2022 Qualified Appraisal

The sellers motive is to monetize their access to substantial natural resources.  The exclusive bulk purchase terms we agreed upon will provide them with short term cash infusion (1 to 3 years) which will provide additional working capital  without reducing future processing capacity or diluting company ownership.  It will also help kickstart additional commercialization efforts of their product line.

The Volcanic Ash is sourced in Utah near Sevier Lake, West of Filmore.  Sevier Lake is an intermittent and endorheic lake which lies in the lowest part of the Sevier Desert, Millard County, Utah. Like Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake, it is a remnant of Pleistocene Lake Bonneville.

It has a ‘unique’ combination of both ancient seabed minerals and “air fall” volcanic ash, that gives it tremendous value as a soil amendment to support the biome in soils, which feed the plants, as our gut biome feeds and supports our health.

There is an estimated 3 Million tons of rich solid minerals available to extract on this 8,600+ acre land tract.

Mining crews are obligated to treat the land well, uphold all local customs, laws and ordinances.  They will employ a very clean extraction process while also avoiding unnecessary destruction of property.  Mined minerals may be stored on the property for up to 30 years.  

Adana LLC is the mine owner.

Turning Green Trust owns 8,000 acres in central Utah that contains the mine.

Tephra (the scientific name of volcanic ash) contains primary minerals which have abundance of nutrients. Over time, chemical and biological weathering, the ashes will release the nutrients and the ash will increase its surface area, enable them to hold more nutrients and water. This natural phenomenon renews the soil, and can be used as an organic fertilizer.

By feeding the soil microbiome first, healthy plants can resist pest pressure, reducing or eliminating the need for pesticide.

Volcanic ash fertilizer contains minerals that provide the soil with a healthy foundation for plants:

RESILIENCY

Volcanic ash fertilizer adds resiliency to plants during drought and weather fluctuations.

SUPPORTS PLANT GROWTH

Increases soil fertility and trace elements to the farm and garden giving the soil, plants, and animals the vital minerals needed to thrive.

HEALTH BENEFITS

The nutrients and trace elements give the soil, plants, and animals the vital minerals needed to thrive.

IMPROVES NUTRIENT CONTENT

Benefits root system growth and absorption of minerals and nutrients, activating the probiotic microbiome in the soil, and enhancing the nutrition and the flavors of foods and fruits. 

Yes, the current federal limit is 30% of your adjusted gross income. You may carry forward any excess deductions for up to 5 years.  See IRS Publication 526. 

The asset value is stable and is well protected from a whip-saw market effect.  The product is valued at the same price per unit as the owner has sold and continues to sell commercially in the ordinary course of business. 

Furthermore, the LLC's operational agreement secures the post appraisal value of the asset with a commitment to deliver the number of units needed to ensure a 4x multiple of the purchasers acquisition cost.  The product will be delivered directly to the purhaser or to the qualified charity.  This final delivery destination is the choice of each LLC interest hold independent of all others.  

Click Here for a Post Appraisal Distribution Example

Non cash charitable contributions (tangible assets) are eligible for deductions at their fair market value (FMV) if they are held for more than one year. 

Under well settled ‘tacking rules’, the holding period of an asset that is contributed into a partnership retains the original holding period that the contributing partner has; thus,  assets within an LLC, that were for more than one year, are considered long term property at the time of contribution.  The holding period of the asset will remain long term property as to all LLC members regardless of date of member interest acquisition.  Click Here for Full Due Diligence Info Sheet

In Skripak v, Comm’r, 84 T.C. 285, the taxpayers participated in a program to purchase books at a steep discount. The IRS sought to have the taxpayer’s charitable deduction disallowed based on the economic substance of the donation, however was unsuccessful.

RERI Holdings against the IRS, the court held that “doctrines such as business purpose and an objective of economic profit are of little, if any, significance in determining whether [a taxpayer] made charitable gifts.” Id. at 315.

Futher In RERI Holdings I, LLC v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2014-99, the court noted that Skripak, Weitz, and Hunterti presented the court with “taxpayers who participated in tax avoidance programs that, in a nutshell, involved buying tangible personal property at distress prices for the sole purpose of contributing the property to a qualified charitable recipient.” Id. at 6.

The court acknowledged that in such a situation “the lack of any non-tax purpose for entering into the transaction (i.e., the transactions’ lack of ‘economic substance’) was not a deterrent to the taxpayer’s entitlement to a charitable contribution deduction.” Id. The court reasoned that the Skripak holding, in particular, was based on the principle that: “The deduction for charitable contributions provided by [I.R.C.] section 170 is a legislative subsidy for purely personal (as opposed to business) expenses of a taxpayer.” Implicitly, as charitable contribution deductions do not arise from business activities, and are inherently unprofitable, business purpose and objective profit motive are not particularly revealing analytical tools

When an individual donates to a “qualified charity”, according to IRS guidelines, the contributions are eligible for a charitable deduction. The charitable organization may use donations received to further its charitable purpose by commercializing, or reselling donations for cash.   

General

Charitable deductions available on donations made to a qualified charity for up to 30% of ordinary income per year (can be carried forward for up to 5 years).

Donations to charity are at appraised, fair market value when held for over 1 year and at actual cash outlay if less than 1 year.

"Holding period" of assets contributed by an LLC member are 'tacked on' to the holding period of the LLC. Thus, if held for over a year by the contributing partner, they are deemed to be held 'long term' within the LLC.

Deduction in excess of basis is allowable.

Specific Transaction

The LLC was capitalized by a combination of minerals with a long term holding period and cash.

The minerals held by the LLC were appraised by a qualified appraisal and donated to a qualified charity.  Therefore a charitable deduction against ordinary income is available.

[1] Contributors may continue to rely on the Pub.78 data contained in Tax Exempt Organization Search to the same extent provided for in Revenue Procedure 2011-33. The name of the charity is Le Mole Avant Tout.

Revenue Ruling 96-11 addresses the basis issue for a charitable contribution of property from a partnership. It explains that charitable contributions are allowed at FMV and that value is passed through to the partners to include on the partner's return, and not included in computing the partnership income. It further concludes that since the resulting permanent decrease in the partnership's basis is an expenditure of the partnership, not deductible in computing the partnership's taxable income, it is not properly chargeable to capital accounts.[1]

RR 96-11 was clarified in the 2017 Tax Act, but the change did not alter the RR as it relates to this transaction. Rather, the change was made to close a technical reading of the RR related to a different type of transaction. In determining the partnership income or loss for the year, charitable contributions are not considered as a partnership expense but rather are taken into account separately by the partners under § 702(a)(4).

The regulations under § 704(d) do not list charitable contributions among the specific items of loss which are subject to the § 704(d) limitation.

The 2017 tax act (Pub. L. No. 115-97, §13503), however, amended § 704(d) and clarified that charitable contributions (and taxes described in § 901) are taken into account for the basis limitation rules for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Under §705(a)(2)(B), a charitable contribution of property by a partnership reduces each partner's basis in the partnership by the amount of the partner's share of the partnership's basis in the property contributed. A charitable contribution, however, can never reduce the partner's basis below zero.

The 2017 tax act amended § 704(d) to correct an unintended result that arose from a technical reading of the section. For partnership years beginning before January 1, 2018, § 704(d) apparently permits a partner who has a zero basis in its partnership interest to continue to deduct its distributive share of the partnership's charitable contributions without a further decrease to the basis of its interest in the partnership, whereas a partner with a positive basis in its partnership interest is required to decrease its basis accordingly.

The explanations in the 2017 tax act note that in the case of a charitable contribution by the partnership of property whose fair market value exceeds its adjusted basis, a special rule provides that the basis limitation on partner losses does not apply to the extent of the partner’s distributive share of the excess (see pages 222-224).

No, this is NOT an IRS listed transaction.

It is also NOT substantially similar to syndicated conservation easements which are listed transactions referenced in https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-17-10.pdf.

That Notice regarding conservation easements is distinguishable from this purchase opportunity in the following aspects:

The Notice clearly states that the conservation easements are based on inflated hypothetical valuations.

In addition, in contrast to traditional charitable gifting where an asset is put into productive use for the benefit of a charity, in conservation easements the charity is yoked with the burden of enforcing the easement.

This goes against typical public policy encouraging the productive use of assets and iv. the specific congressional intent of Congress that charities receive the benefit of donated assets to actively further their charitable purpose.

More procedurally, the Notice does not alter the rule regarding tacking of holding periods which allows a donation to be greater than the cash contribution of the donor (indeed it specifically allows tacking and only requires reporting on transactions with valuations of greater than 2.5, their contribution... if the Notice's concern was with the tacking rules they simply would have proscribed tacking).

In our transaction, a) in contrast to being real estate, with b) hypothetical future values, our transaction is appraised at the c) actual fair market value of the product which is at the price that the d) previous partners sell it at and e) at the lower range of the market rates.

Moreover, here the charity is not yoked with any burden, but in fact is ecstatic of its opportunity in receiving the volcanic ash.

Note also that in charitable giving law, a donation is the fair market value unless the holding period is for less than a year, and then it is for the cash outlay. The fact that the Notice does not 'notice out' transactions of 2.5x or less AND does not attack the longstanding rule of allowing the tacking of a holding period of a contributing partner, thereby specifically allowing the donor's to take a long term holding period in their donated asset, makes counterfactual an argument that the Notice prohibits donations that are greater than the cash outlay.

In summary, our transaction is consistent with congressional intent and common industry practice related to charitable gifting (unlike the conservation easements) and is valued consistent with the other products actually in the marketplace and sold in the ordinary course of business.

It is inconsistent with the facts, the reasoning, the state of the law, and public policy and congressional intent to hold that eleemosynary donations of actual minerals are "substantially similar" to the inflated hypothetical values of restricting potential future real estate land development that burdens a charity in perpetuity with the duty to monitor and enforce the easement.

Yes, a legal opinion may be acquired from a qualified 3rd party tax attorney, if desired.  

Sample Tax Opinion - Redacted Name

Followers of Christ, Incorporated - Founded in March 2012 by Henoc and Emanise Ulysse with a mission to minister to the needs of Haiti’s poorest citizens.  Followers of Christ primary missions are as follows:  feed the hungry, care for the sick, improve living conditions and education for children, provide quality drinking water and equip farmers with better ways to grow their crops, giving them the ability to be self-sufficient and independent.

To verify qualified 501c3 status, you can go here:  https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch and type in MAT's EIN number (EIN Number:  45-5118649)

Click here to view their website:  https://thefollowersofchrist.org/

The following 3 documents are required for your tax filing and should be provided to your tax preparer:

1- Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) of your Series

2- 8283

3- Valuation Report (qualified appraisal)

A copy of the completed copy of Form 8283 from us should be attached to your tax return along with a copy of the Qualified appraisal that you have been provided. Use the amount shown on your Schedule K-1, not the amount shown on Form 8283, to figure your deduction.

When figuring the deduction for the contribution of capital gain property, you can generally use the fair market value (FMV) of the property.

FMV has been established with the provided qualified appraisal.

The number of units that were elected to be donated by each series are reflected in the Series Schedule K-1 (Form 1065). Use the amount shown on the Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), found on line 13 (Code E).

No.

A completed and signed copy of Form 8283 from the donation from will be uploaded to your portal and attached to the tax return along with a copy of the qualified appraisal that have been provided.

Use the amount shown on the Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), found on line 13 (Code E), not the amount shown on Form 8283, to figure your deduction. (See 8283 instruction highlights for reference)

I8283 IRS Forms & Instructions

The IRS uses the code E on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) to identify the charitable donation as a capital gain property.

Code E is “Capital gain property to a 50% organization (30%) Subject to the 30% AGI limitation, on line 12 of Schedule A (Form 1040).”

The “Other Increase” in <Section L> on the Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) is the difference between the basis (Contribution) and the FMV of the series charitable contribution.

The charitable deduction reduces the basis, including the exempt capital gain (Indicated on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) Line 13,Code E, and Section L ”Other increase”). The Series Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) will be marked as a final K1.

The minerals are considered a capital asset within the Company's partnership. The attached Publication 526, with notes and highlights refer to capital assets.

Sec.1223(2) provides that the partnership’s holding period for contributed assets includes the holding period of the assets in the hands of the contributing partner.

We will provide an 8283 signed by both, the officer of the charity and the professional appraiser and a copy of the appraisal with all required language and information.

P526 IRS Publication

No, this is NOT an IRS listed transaction.

It is also NOT substantially similar to syndicated conservation easements which are listed transactions referenced in https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-17-10.pdf.

That Notice regarding conservation easements is distinguishable from this purchase opportunity in the following aspects:

The Notice clearly states that the conservation easements are based on inflated hypothetical valuations.

In addition, in contrast to traditional charitable gifting where an asset is put into productive use for the benefit of a charity, in conservation easements the charity is yoked with the burden of enforcing the easement.

This goes against typical public policy encouraging the productive use of assets and iv. the specific congressional intent of Congress that charities receive the benefit of donated assets to actively further their charitable purpose.

More procedurally, the Notice does not alter the rule regarding tacking of holding periods which allows a donation to be greater than the cash contribution of the donor (indeed it specifically allows tacking and only requires reporting on transactions with valuations of greater than 2.5, their contribution... if the Notice's concern was with the tacking rules they simply would have proscribed tacking).

In our transaction, a) in contrast to being real estate, with b) hypothetical future values, our transaction is appraised at the c) actual fair market value of the product which is at the price that the d) previous partners sell it at and e) at the lower range of the market rates.

Moreover, here the charity is not yoked with any burden, but in fact is ecstatic of its opportunity in receiving the volcanic ash.

Note also that in charitable giving law, a donation is the fair market value unless the holding period is for less than a year, and then it is for the cash outlay. The fact that the Notice does not 'notice out' transactions of 2.5x or less AND does not attack the longstanding rule of allowing the tacking of a holding period of a contributing partner, thereby specifically allowing the donor's to take a long term holding period in their donated asset, makes counterfactual an argument that the Notice prohibits donations that are greater than the cash outlay.

In summary, our transaction is consistent with congressional intent and common industry practice related to charitable gifting (unlike the conservation easements) and is valued consistent with the other products actually in the marketplace and sold in the ordinary course of business.

It is inconsistent with the facts, the reasoning, the state of the law, and public policy and congressional intent to hold that eleemosynary donations of actual minerals are "substantially similar" to the inflated hypothetical values of restricting potential future real estate land development that burdens a charity in perpetuity with the duty to monitor and enforce the easement.