Attorney-at-Law

METHOD, NO MADNESS

In Uncategorized on 09/21/2016 at 01:01

And Substantial Compliance

 Although the appraisal their tandem appraisers put in didn’t match the literal terms of the regulations, it was close enough for The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, s/a/k/a The Irrefragable, Irrefutable, Ineluctable, Ineffable, Incomparable, Indefatigable, Incontrovertible and Illustrious Foe of the Partitive Genitive, Judge Mark V. Holmes.

You can see for yourselves in Cave Buttes, L.L.C., Michael Wolfe, Tax Matters Partner, 147 T. C. 10, filed 9/20/16.

The local flood controllers tried to bluff the Cave Butte gang into selling their property overlooking the city of Phoenix, AZ, so the Cave Butte gang did, but claimed the difference between what they got from the flood controllers and the true worth of the property was a charitable contribution.

Enter the Section 170 regulations.

The Cave Butte gang’s duo of appraisers were a wee bit casual, and IRS very carefully flyspecks their appraisal, picking every nit in sight.

Judge Holmes turns all objections aside. While piously disclaiming any intention to rewrite the regulations that Congress especially reserved to Treasury, Judge Holmes opens the hosepipe of substantial compliance on the smoky fire of IRS’s objections.

For the trial, the Cave Butte gang outsources the appraising, and the third appraiser brings them the win.

This is a must-read for all who deal with appraisals and appraisers.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: