Opinion
16731-19
04-22-2024
COX POINT PROPCO, LLC, COX POINT PLANTATION INVESTORS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
ALINA I. MARSHALL JUDGE.
Pending before the Court in this case is respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed October 14, 2020 and respondent's Motion in Limine, filed June 17, 2021. In his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, respondent asks the Court to rule on whether the Conservation Easement and Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants (Deed of Easement) conveying a conservation easement satisfies the requirements of section 170(h)(5)(A) and Treas. Reg. 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii). Specifically, respondent argues that: "[b]ecause the terms of Cox Point Propco's Deed of Easement regarding extinguishment proceeds do not meet the requirements of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii), the conservation purpose of the contribution is not protected in perpetuity. As it is not protected in perpetuity, the contribution is not treated as exclusively for conservation purposes under I.R.C. § 170(h)(5)(A). Consequently, it is not a qualified conservation contribution under I.R.C. § 170(h)(1)." Petitioner contends in its Objection, filed January 4, 2021, that respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is based on an erroneous interpretation of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6).
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times and regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times.
In his Motion in Limine, respondent moves that the Court preclude petitioner from relying on the Declaration of Professor Bryan A. Garner in Support of Objection to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed January 4, 2021, because its "sole purpose is to opine on the interpretation of law, specifically a Treasury Regulation."
In Valley Park Ranch, LLC v. Commissioner, 162 T.C. No. 6 (Mar. 28, 2024), the Court held that Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) is procedurally invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act and that the deed in that case therefore need not comply with its requirements. Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed October 14, 2020, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion in Limine, filed June 17, 2021, is denied as moot.