B. Belk, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the taxpayer must grant an easement over “a single, immutable parcel at the outset”
• “The Easement purports to restrict development rights in perpetuity for a defined parcel of land, but upon satisfying the conditions in the substitution provision, the taxpayers may remove land from that defined parcel and substitute other land.”
• “The Easement purports to restrict development rights in perpetuity for a defined parcel of land, but upon satisfying the conditions in the substitution provision, the taxpayers may remove land from that defined parcel and substitute other land.”
• “The [e]asement purports to restrict development rights in perpetuity for a defined parcel of land, but upon satisfying the conditions in the [modification] provision, the taxpayers may remove land from that defined parcel and substitute other land.” (emphasis added)
• “The [e]asement purports to restrict development rights in perpetuity for a defined parcel of land, but upon satisfying the conditions in the [modification] provision, the taxpayers may remove land from that defined parcel and substitute other land.” (emphasis added)
• “Thus, the Belks ask us to employ their savings clause not to aid in determining [their] intent, but to rewrite their Easement in response to our holding. This we will not do.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).