I’ve often commented on, and deplored, the lengths to which dodgers and protesters will go in their quest for unearned victory. But in Ivey Branch Holdings, LLC, Ivey Branch Investors, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 19189-19, filed 9/11/25, IRS counsel shows they can go head-to-head with the leaders in the dodge-and-protest game.

The Ivey Branches stip to go with 11 Cir’s eventual decision in J L Minerals. For the backstory of J L Minerals, see my blogpost “Blunging Farblundgeit,” 10/8/24.

So Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber, with what one imagines is a sigh of relief, lets all the trial subpoenaed witnesses go free, moots out a couple motions (hi, Judge Holmes), and drops the case off two (count  ’em, two) trial calendars.

But one motion remains, and thereby hangs the cliché.

“…respondent filed a motion for partial summary judgment contending that the charitable contribution deduction should be denied in its entirety because the Ivey Branch property is allegedly encumbered by an easement, granted to an electric utility entity in 1975, that would permit erection of electric utility lines over the property.” Order, at p. 1.

Fifty (count ’em, fifty) years old.

Minor fact questions: are such lines already there? If so, do they serve a conservation purpose, e.g., powering devices that detect poachers and trespassers and fire, or nighttime cameras that detect animal and bird activity, thus protecting such a purpose? If not, will the electric utility suddenly erect such lines gratuitously and without notice to the landowner after fifty years of inaction? Is not this easement a de minimis restriction, or a contingency so remote as to be negligible?

I’m a fan of summary J, but this is ridiculous.