In Uncategorized on 09/12/2022 at 12:11

I’ve hewn and shaped the Bard’s famous line from Hamlet, to show another example of how 11 Cir’s evisceration of Reg Section 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) upends previously-granted summary J.

I didn’t blog the earlier appearances of Battelle Glover Investments, LLC, Battelle Investment Group, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 6904-14, filed 9/12/22. This case featured another “highly contestable reading of what it means to be perpetual,” same-old.

Now, of course, post-Hewitt, whatever such are still in the Rule 161 30-day reconsideration window are up for grabs. Of course the Battelles move, Judge Courtney D (“CD”) Jones reconsiders, ditches her prior orders, gives the Battelles summary J that Reg Section 1.170A-14(g)(6(ii) is invalid, and  tells IRS to try the fact question of the dueling Forms 8283, for which see Order at pp. 6-7. Was there or was there not a missing statement of cost basis?

When it comes to this South East Conference of marked-up boondockery, it’s Hewitt that’s the destiny that shapes the parties’ fates.

Edited to add, 9/12/22: From a source, “I believe this CE [conservation easement] agreement had the same flaw as TOT and Plateau, that is a FIXED sharing in $$ condemnation etc, which they later corrected by an amended deed. Not a fixed %. That’s twist on facts in Hewitt.” The source went on to express surprise at the dueling 8283s. Indeed, most unusual; should be an interesting trial (or evidentiary hearing).


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: