- 10 -
no proof that either party evidenced an intention to make an
exchange. "The fact that the * * * [taxpayers] intended the
* * * [new] parcel to replace the * * * [old] property in their
holdings does not render their transactions an exchange." Id. at
218.
Petitioners' factual circumstances are indistinguishable
from Bezdjian v. Commissioner, supra. In both cases, there was a
desire to purchase property and a need to dispose of like-kind
property to finance the acquisition. In both cases, there was an
inability to find a buyer for the original property and a
purchase of the new property before the original property could
be sold. In both instances, there was a borrowing against the
original property to finance the purchase of the new property,
and neither set of taxpayers received cash in hand from the sale
of the original property.
The facts here support respondent's position that
petitioners possessed indicia of ownership of both Bayshore
Liquor and Sunshine Liquor. If petitioners had been unable to
sell Sunshine Liquor, they would still have been liable to
Hanshaw on the note they gave him to finance their purchase of
Bayshore. Likewise, petitioners were legally entitled to keep
Sunshine Liquor in any event. Petitioners were liable to Hanshaw
for the outstanding debt, but they were not otherwise bound to
sell Sunshine Liquor. Furthermore, petitioners simultaneously
operated Sunshine Liquor and Bayshore Liquor from October 5,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011