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)
Davis D. Lackey, Comment, Fore! Are Private Golf Clubs Destroying the Purpose of Conservation?, 72 Mercer L. Rev. 597 (2021).