Even when it doesn’t force settlement (see my blogpost “Why I Love Summary J,” 11/13/23), summary J takes away the nonessentials, the makeweights, and the hopers that we lawyers have been trained to plead lest we overlook anything that might be construed as a winning argument.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler shows us how it’s done in Jackson Crossroads LLC, Greencone Investments LLC, Tax Matters Partner et. al. Docket No. 12235-20, filed 12/8/23. Both sides move for partial summary J.

The Jacksons go 6-for-8 on their motion.

IRS first, as it’s easiest. IRS wants Boss Hossery confirmed. The Jacksons don’t fight it, and anyway this is Dixieland Boondockery Golsenized to the Elevenses, who’ve eviscerated Section 6751(b) in Kroner. IRS could Boss Hoss it tomorrow.

IRS attacks the appraisals and appraisers, and Judge Speedy Weiler finds enough facts in dispute to put these matters over for trial. Turns out the Jacksons’ companions named the wrong appraiser as being qualified in their partial summary J motion. Order, at p. 10. That’s what happens when you clone pleadings on the wordprocessor; no substitute for hand-tailoring.

Now it’s the Jacksons’ (and their companions’) turn. There was a (a) a non-cash (easement deed) contribution (b) in year at issue. IRS only claims quid pro quo, but other than the tax break IRS shows none, and Congress intended a tax break.

The interest conveyed is a qualified real property interest. That there are already 15-year Forest Land Protection Act restrictive covenants in place is irrelevant; they’re not perpetual, and will expire by their own terms.

The deed sufficiently states the conservation purposes. “Congress did not determine to incentivize only the preservation of ‘natural’ or ‘high-quality’ areas but rather to allow a charitable contribution deduction for the donation of an easement that has, as its ‘conservation purpose,’ ‘the protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem.” I.R.C. §170(h)(4)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).” Order, at p. 9. The Jacksons are “relatively natural.”

Oh yes, the 501(c)(3) is OK, and the Contemporaneous Written Acknowledgment passes muster.

Again, Judge Holmes’ Oakbrook dissent is justified: try the valuation, not the peripherals.