Shall Ye Know Them

Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes isn’t so sure about that when it comes to Ogeechee Plantation Property, LLC, Ogeechee Plantation Manager, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 6585-21, filed 3/5/25.

This Dixieland Boondockery features two (count ’em, two) deeds. Ogechee and an outfit called Belford Oaks each contributed a conservation easement, and a couple other outfits did likewise (remember this is Judge Holmes). They want summary J that these were “qualified real property interests” per Section 170(h)(1)(A) and donated in perpetuity per Section 170(h)(2)(C).

The deed donating the interest describes the parcel in question as lots on a tax map, but same are carve-outs from a much larger parcel, the description of which, printed in full, runs a page-and-a-half. The problem doesn’t end there, as three (count ’em, three) years later, two other outfits, Belford Pines and Fort Argyle filed a “corrective limited warranty deed” that omits any reference to the larger parcel. Order, at p. 4.

Judge Holmes is concerned the petitioners may have been getting shifty.

“These cases are presumptively appealable to the Eleventh Circuit. In Pine Mountain Preserve, LLC v. Comm’r, 978 F.3d 1200, 1207 (11th Cir. 2020), that court interpreted section 170(h)(2)(C) to require donation of an easement over a defined property. It specifically held that a restriction on ‘the real property’ is not perpetual when the boundaries of the property might shift, though it ruled that the deed at issue did not allow for shifting boundaries.” Order, at p. 4.

But the initial deed and the corrective limited warranty deed vary so widely that Judge Holmes can’t tell what was originally granted, and what error, if any, was sought to be corrected.

“Ogeechee and Belford Oaks may not have adequately described the property over which they were granting their easements. And the subsequent changes in the ‘corrective deeds’ that Belford Pines and Fort Argyle filed may be an attempt to change the boundaries of the property to which the easement applies, or an implicit admission that the [original] deeds … did not adequately describe that property, or maybe something else.” Order, at p. 4.

Tough to solve after a trial, but here it’s easy to bounce summary J because movant hasn’t shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

But Judge Holmes won’t continue trial, now set for Jacksonville FL in June, because hard to find courtroom space with all these Dixieland Boondockery trials going on.

Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber, though still perplexed at Cassandra Allen’s maneuver (disclosing W-2 income on a gift tax return while not disclosing same nor paying tax thereon on a 1040X), must correct his opinion in T. C.  Memo. 2025-5, filed 3/4/25, which creates a new entry in my “Who Cares?” series..

Cassandra moved for a Rule 161 reconsideration. Judge Scholar Al thought she lived in MS when she petitioned, but she says she lived in MI.

So Judge Scholar Al orders that the opinion correct Mississippi to Michigan, and appeals to 6 Cir rather than 5 Cir.

For the rest, the previous opinion stands. See my blogpost “Just When Ya Think Ya’d Heard ‘Em All,” 1/16/25.*

* https://taishofflaw.com/2025/01/16/just-when-ya-think-yad-heard-em-all/

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 T. C. 5, filed 3/4/25, claims the $3.1 million it got from NY State to stay in NYC post-9/11, when its subsidiary Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 of its 1000 employees on 9/11, was a contribution to capital, or a gift, or disaster relief. Anyway, it’s not taxable income, they say.

In a “REVIEWED” full-dress T. C., Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan says no. For some background, see my blogpost “Continuation,” 9/16/20.*

The NYS grants weren’t part of permanent working capital, but went to pay rent and salaries, which the terms of the grants required. The only capital items were furniture, furnishings and equipment, and Taishoff says even those might have gotten Section 179 treatment.

The grants aren’t gifts because NYS hoped for tax revenue from corporate operations and employee State income taxes. Quid pro quo.

Section 139 disaster relief money is excludable only by individuals, which CF Headquarters Corporation isn’t.

But CF does escape penalties, because it cites all the right cases, so substantial authority. A Taishoff “Good Try” to Kevin M. Flynn, Esq., CF’s trusty attorney.

JJ. Foley, Buch, Nega, Pugh, Ashford, Urda, Copeland, Jones, Toro, Greaves, Marshall, Weiler, Way, Landy, Arbeit, Guider, Jenkins, and Fung are all on board.

* https://taishofflaw.com/2020/09/16/continuation/

The trusty attorneys for Albero Holdings, LLC, Albero Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16284-21, filed 3/4/25, are trying to understand and undermine the Boss Hossery therein, but their document production demands and interrogatories are run over by Greenberg’s Express.

Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris: “‘As a general rule, this Court will not look behind a deficiency notice to examine the evidence used or the propriety of respondent’s motives or of the administrative policy or procedure involved in making his determinations.’ Greenberg’s Express v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974). By seeking drafts of final documents, petitioner is essentially seeking to look behind the signature appearing on the face of the form. See Sparta Pink Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-88, at *8; Patel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-133, at *21–22. This Court has held repeatedly that the ‘written supervisory approval requirement . . .requires just that: written supervisory approval.’ Dorchester Farms Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-92, at *5 (citing Pickens Decorative Stone, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-22, at *7 (quoting Raifman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-101, at *61)). And a manager’s signature on a civil penalty approval form, without more, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. See Sparta Pink Prop., LLC, T.C. Memo. 2022-88, at *8 (citing Belair Woods, LLC v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 1, 17 (2020)). Respondent provided petitioner with the penalty approval form electronically signed by the assigned revenue agent’s supervisor and the final FPAA. The draft documents petitioner seeks are irrelevant to determining respondent’s compliance with section 6751(b)(1).” Order, at p. 3.

I’m leaving in the citations because I’ve blogged all these cases.

The Boss Hoss has a first-class stateroom on Greenberg’s Express.

Omnibus motions are a regular feature of litigation in both State and Federal courts. It is economical to dispose of whatever impedimenta can be dealt with pretrial.

Hence Jerry Fitzgerald’s trusty attorneys file an omnibus motion to “quash respondent’s deposition notice and subpoena, motion for protective order, and opposition to motion to compel.” Rising Rock Partners, LLC, Robert Schill, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 23614-21, filed 3/3/25. Jerry is a nonparty; his exact role, if any, in the case is unclear from the text of the order.

Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves tosses Jerry’s motion and supporting memorandum, but allows two (count ’em, two) separate motions and a separate opposition if trusty attorneys wish.

Rule 54(b) requires separate motions. And I can see why putting opposition to an adversary’s motion in one’s own motion (other than a cross-motion) might potentially confuse an adversary. Of course, hitting a pro se with a shotgun motion is unfair.

But here IRS is on the receiving end. IRS’ attorneys have been around the block a couple times (hi, Judge Holmes), and I am sure were nowise befogged by Jerry’s documents. Judge Tag Greaves has unscrambled many frittatas during his tenure on the Tax Court bench, surely much more complicated than that posed by Jerry’s trusty attorneys, even though a source tells me that one such has been “listed as a Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch in Tax Law since 2021,” an honor to which I have never aspired.

I most respectfully suggest that when Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda takes up the Chieftainship in June, he cast a glance at Rule 54(b), and helps me (and perhaps Jerry’s trusty attorneys) understand the rationale behind the Rule.

It seems that the non-Venetian DOGE has decreed the end of 18F, the “onlie begetter” of DAWSON and author of the famous months-long shutdown of the Tax Court website to impose same on those who never done them any harm.

For backstory, see my blogpost “Behind That Curtain,” 7/6/21.*

A source states 18F was founded in 2014, resided at GSA, operated on a fee-for-services basis, and played a role in numerous high-profile projects, including redesigning the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s complaint submission process, as well as the free online tax return service IRS Direct File.

Source claims that the rationale for the shutdown, announced at 0100 hrs ET 2/1/25, was ideological, which I neither affirm nor deny on this nonpolitical blog, merely noting same.

* https://taishofflaw.com/2021/07/06/behind-that-curtain/