Fan that I am of summary J, here is a textbook example of how this tool carves away the nonessential and focuses on the main point. Of course, the trusty attorneys for Bradford Resources LLC, Bradford Investors LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 13012-20, filed 8/23/23, are the first team, including but not limited to Vivian D. (“Golden”) Hoard, Esq., whose forensic talents I’ve praised before.

First, clear the decks. The Bradfords want summary J that the 501(c)(3) to which they gave the conservation easement (for which they want a $24 million deduction, of which IRS allows $42K) is indeed a 501(c)(3). They brandish IRS’ own website, and Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler agrees.  “The IRS, on its website, maintains a searchable list of tax-exempt organization [sic].” Order, at p. 2, footnote 2. Yes, they could do this at trial or by request for admissions, but there’s a good reason to do it this way. Get the judge involved early.

Next, the Bradfords want summary J that their Contemporaneous Written Acknowledgement, a ripped-from-the-Regs tracker, satisfies Section 170(f)(8). Here it is: “Your contribution to the ACC, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, is fully tax deductible. ACC has provided no goods or services for your charitable donation. Donation of a conservation easement on a 150.75-acre parcel located off Tanyard Road/Shelby County Road 449 in Harpersville, Alabama 35078 partially constituting tax parcel #175150000001.003 in Shelby County, Alabama.” Order, at p. 2. Can’t say fairer than that. And Judge Speedy Weiler likewise agrees.

Of course, there’s the landmine in the footpath. The Bradfords want summary J that their appraisal summary satisfies the standards of Section 170(f)(11)(C) and  Reg. Section § 1.170A-13(c)(4). IRS folded the 501(c)(3) status of the donee and the adequacy of the CWA. But IRS wants to play its standard gambit, and  knock out the appraisal rather than try the case on valuation. So IRS’ counsel asserts that the Bradfords failed “to disclose the presence of ‘biosolids and biosolid storage’ on the donated property.” Order, at p. 3. (Footnote omitted).

That, says Judge Speedy Weiler, is a question of fact. Now according to the omitted footnote above referred to, IRS raised the biosolids issue in an informal discovery request (Branerton play-nice), to which the Bradfords responded. So isn’t the issue the adequacy of the response, whether it was evasive or not fairly directed to the question posed? Of course, the Order doesn’t set forth the request nor the response. The real questions of fact are whether or not biosolids and biosolid storage are present on the donated property; what difference it makes to whether a valid conservation easement has been granted, and, if one has been granted, what impact the biosolids have on valuation.

But Ms. Golden Hoard and colleagues have materially advanced their cause. Summary J requires movant and respondent to marshal and lay bare their proofs.  The 501(c)(3) and the CWA are off the table. IRS has tipped its hand as to what it sees as a critical issue, to focus the Bradfords’ experts on a key point in their adversary’s case.

So the Bradfords got discovery from their adversary, they had a chance to show the judge that their claim had merit and that they were candid, and they gave away no major part of their trial strategy.

A Taishoff “Good Job, First Class.”