IRS, in its never-ending battle to shoot down Dixieland Boondockerys without the expense of witnesses and trials, for which I as a taxpayer applaud them (governmental efficiency transcends politics), is again on the trail of Desoto Holdings LLC, Desoto Investors LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 13013-20, filed 1/24/25.

This time the claim is that, by subdividing the boondocks whereupon the Desotos placed the easements in question, the Desotos violated the zoning laws of the Town of Harpersville in Shelby County, Alabama (and no, I don’t know where that is, either).

Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris hikes through the land transfers that landed the Desotos in this “Heart of Dixie,” and parses the relevant Harpersville enactments.

“Harpersville Subdivision Regulations § 1:05. A violation ‘shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) for each lot or parcel of land so transferred sold or agreed or negotiated sold,’ and the Town of Harpersville “may enjoin such transfer or sale or agreement by a civil action for injunction brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.” Id.(emphasis added).” Order, at p. 6.

Except Harpersville didn’t enjoin. And the AL zoning cases involve disputes between vendor and purchaser, not at issue here.

Besides, “… the conveyance of property in this case has already occurred. The Town of Harpersville did not enjoin the transfer of property from [vendor] to DeSoto. Neither Alabama law nor the Harpersville Subdivision Regulations give the Town of Harpersville the right to void a completed transfer of property from [vendor] to DeSoto.” Order, at p. 7.

But whether the zoning violation would have prohibited the Desotos from engaging in the limestone mining they claim was worth the millions and billions which they forwent for the noble and Congressionally-endorsed purpose of sparing the precious wilderness from the cutter’s blade is a question of fact. And the Desotos can still apply to the Town of Harpersville for subdivision approval, even if maybe the subdivision law is only intended to control sales and development.

Summary J denied: the deed is not void for violation of the zoning law, and because a question of fact exists about whether the violation prevents the mining, and thus the “before”  valuation of the property in the Desotos’ hands.

Word to the dodgefloggers: Hire competent local counsel to do the due diligence on your boondocks. Or pay them when the slipshod work of those you did hire causes this kind of schemozzle. The former is probably cheaper.