Attorney-at-Law

THE FEEDLOT CONTINUES

In Uncategorized on 02/10/2020 at 15:23

Upton Sinclair has nothing on Judge David Gustafson, who is running his own packing plant, and providing fresh examples of the Texas Maxim.

Here’s Rock Creek Property Holdings, LLC, Rock Creek Land Manager, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 5599-17, filed 2/10/20. It’s another iteration of the failed proportion at extinguishment. Once again, the 501(c)(3) would be short-changed on any appreciation of the property on extinguishment of the conservation easement.

“Rock Creek Holdings (like the petitioner in Railroad Holdings) advances the same arguments about the text of the deed, arguing that because the donee is entitled to ‘at least’ an amount, the donee ‘is not limited to that amount.’ (Doc. 13 at 19). But, as we have explained, a provision that the donee is not necessarily ‘limited to that [deficient] amount’ is insufficient, because the donee must be entitled to the full amount. A deed that provides for the donee a share of proceeds that may be less than the minimum cannot comply by adding ‘at least’ to its deficient formula. The defect cannot be cured by part D of article VI, which purports to resolve any ambiguities in the conservation easement in favor of its validity. See Railroad Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, at *17-*18. Even if we assumed ambiguity in the paragraphs regarding extinguishment, a cure to the validity of the deed of easement does not cure the non-deductibility of the contribution, and construing part D as a saving clause would render it unenforceable. Id. at *18 (‘A donor cannot reserve in an easement deed a right that section 170(h) does not permit * * * but then save his charitable contribution by mentioning the rule he has violated and calling for that rule to kick in and save the day if his violation subsequently comes to light.’).” Order, at pp. 7-8.

For Railroad Holdings, see my blogpost “The Old Texas Maxim,” 2/5/20.

But the point here is that Aiken, who had inherited various parcels of Georgia scrub land ”… had effectively received about $1.2 million for the entire property in September 2013; and Rock Creek Holdings claimed that the easement on the property was worth about $7.9 million three months later in December 2013.” Order, at p. 5.

Once again, the fate of the hogs is as heretofore stated.

  1. […] wasting any time. Lew Taishoff reports a ruling on a motion for summary judgement in another case Rock Property Holdings LLC. Same issue, some of the same players, same judge, same state – different county. Stunning […]

    Like

  2. […] wasting any time. Lew Taishoff reports a ruling on a motion for summary judgement in another case Rock Property Holdings LLC. Same issue, some of the same players, same judge, same state – different county. Stunning […]

    Like

  3. […] wasting any time. Lew Taishoff reports a ruling on a motion for summary judgement in another case Rock Property Holdings LLC. Same issue, some of the same players, same judge, same state – different county. Stunning […]

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: