Lakewood Associates, Robert G. Moore, Tax Matters Partner - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

               taxpayer claims that the taxable year in which a loss                  
               is sustained is fixed by his abandonment of the claim                  
               for reimbursement, he must be able to produce objective                
               evidence of his having abandoned the claim, such as the                
               execution of a release.  [Emphasis added.]                             
          In sum, section 1.165-1(d)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides that           
          a loss is not sustained, i.e., recognized, for purposes of                  
          section 165(a), if there exists a claim for reimbursement with              
          respect to the loss for which there is a reasonable prospect of             
          recovery, until it can be ascertained with reasonable certainty             
          whether or not such reimbursement will be received.                         
          Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is premised on the                 
          theory that Lakewood was guaranteed full compensation for the               
          loss resulting from the classification of its property as                   
          wetlands.  In particular, assuming the classification of                    
          Lakewood's property as wetlands constitutes a "taking" of the               
          property, respondent contends that Lakewood is guaranteed to be             
          compensated by the Federal Government pursuant to the Fifth                 
          Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides that "private             
          property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just                  
          compensation."                                                              
          Petitioner presents four alternative arguments in opposition                
          to respondent's motion.  First, petitioner contends that, to the            
          extent respondent's motion is based on an admission of all                  
          allegations of fact contained in the petition, respondent is                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011