Publication Date
3-2021
Document Type
Comment
Abstract
A. Scope of Article
Undoubtedly, anyone who has ever stumbled across I.R.C. § 170 (“§ 170”)21 and the pertaining regulations knows that § 170 is a complex statute. The purpose of this Comment is to provide a broad sweeping, birds-eye-view narrative concerning a specific subsection of § 170. More precisely, the principal goal is to analyze what it means to make a contribution for conservation purposes under § 170(h)(4). This article seeks to raise important questions about the purpose of conservation easements as well as provide a practical discourse regarding the application of the Code.
This Comment involves three cases that contain similar facts. Each case involves a private golf course and a conservation easement. However, each court adopts a different approach. One of the objectives of this Comment is to analyze the framework of § 170(h) while dissecting each court’s approach to applying the Tax Code (“the Code”) and Treasury Regulations.
B. Court Opinions
- Atkinson v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 110 T.C.M (CCH) 550 (T.C. 2015)
- PBBM-Rose Hill, Ltd. v. Comm’r, 900 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2018)
- Champions Retreat Golf Founders, v. Comm’r, 959 F.3d 1033 (2020)
Recommended Citation
Davis D. Lackey, Comment, Fore! Are Private Golf Clubs Destroying the Purpose of Conservation?, 72 Mercer L. Rev. 597 (2021).