JL Minerals, LLC v. Commissioner

In an unpublished order, the Tax Court denied the IRS’ motion for summary judgment reserving the proceeds issue for trial, found the deemed approval provision as not fatal because of the limitations, and rejected that the building area was “moveable.”

The Tax Court denied the IRS motion for summary judgment concerning a prohibition on the extraction of subsurface minerals by a surface mining method.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the LLC and denied summary judgment to the Town and County. Following well-developed New York common law, the court ruled that the deed restriction did not include any language evidencing the requisite intent to run with the land.

In a proceeds clause case with the improvement deduction language, the Tax Court denied the deductions in full, following Oakbrook Land Holdings LLC, v. Commissioner and Coal Property Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner. The Tax Court declined to consider the IRS' argument on the floating building areas.

The Tax Court denied summary judgment, agreeing with the taxpayer that both compliance with the regulation for a “qualified appraiser” and supplying “a description of the property in sufficient detail” required further factual development.

The Tax Court followed its decision in Palmolive Building Investors, LLC, finding the prior claims language in the easement and the subordinations to be fatally flawed.

This article analyzes the holding in the Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation and Subsidiaries v. United States concerning surface mineral rights and the federal tax deduction.

Lumpkin One Five Six LLC v. Commissioner - June 2020.pdf In a proceeds clause case with the improvement deduction language, the Tax Court denied the deductions in full, following Oakbrook Land Holdings LLC, v. Commissioner and Coal Property Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner. The Tax Court declined to consider the IRS' argument on the floating building areas.

The court, in an order on a motion for summary judgment and a subsequent order denying reconsideration, held that the conservation easement was void because it was unsigned and therefore in violation of the Statute of Frauds.

The Tax Court denied the IRS’s summary judgment on whether the taxpayer retained the right to mine subsurface clay considering a prior release and the express prohibition on mining in the easement.