- 8 -
property at the time that the agreement to exchange is signed.
Biggs v. Commissioner, supra at 913-914. Exchange property need
not be identified at the time an agreement to effect an exchange
is made. Alderson v. Commissioner, 317 F.2d 790 (9th Cir. 1963),
revg. 38 T.C. 215 (1962). Proceeds of the sale of property to be
exchanged may be placed in escrow and, provided the taxpayer does
not constructively receive the proceeds, an exchange involving
property acquired with the proceeds will qualify for the benefits
of section 1031(a). Garcia v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 491, 499-500
(1983). The taxpayer may locate and negotiate for the property
to be exchanged. Biggs v. Commissioner, supra at 915. The buyer
need not hold title to the exchange property received by the
taxpayer. Biggs v. Commissioner, 632 F.2d at 1177. Where a
preference for exchange is manifest, and an exchange actually
occurs, courts generally ignore the possibility that a sale of
the taxpayer’s property may occur if the exchange does not
actually take place. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 32
B.T.A. 82, 87 (1935).
Although considerable latitude has been allowed by the
courts with respect to the structure of like-kind exchanges, that
latitude is not open ended. Estate of Bowers v. Commissioner, 94
T.C. 582, 590 (1990). A taxpayer’s intent to effect a section
1031(a) transaction is not determinative of the transaction’s tax
treatment, although intent is given deference where the parties
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011