- 5 -
purchased by the taxpayer and used as his principal residence,
gain shall be recognized only to the extent that the adjusted
sale price of the old residence exceeds the cost of purchasing
the new residence.
Respondent argues that, for purposes of determining the
applicability of section 1034, the sale of petitioner's former
residence in Richmond and the purchase of his new residence in
Fairfield occurred on the respective settlement dates of the
transfers, August 1, 1989, and August 7, 1991. Thus, respondent
argues that petitioner's new home was not purchased within 2
years of the sale of his old residence and that he is therefore
not eligible for nonrecognition treatment under section 1034(a).
Petitioner contends that he made a deposit on the Fairfield
property and moved into the home prior to August 1, 1991, and
further, that he made several attempts to purchase a new home
prior to that date but that he was unable to obtain financing due
to his bankruptcy filing.
We note at the outset that the purchase of a new residence
within the period fixed by statute is a strict requirement for
obtaining the benefits of section 1034, and that we are without
authority to weigh the merits of the events precipitating delay
to determine whether the time limits may be waived or extended.
Elam v. Commissioner, 477 F.2d 1333, 1335 (6th Cir. 1973), affg.
per curiam 58 T.C. 238 (1972); Bayley v. Commissioner, 35 T.C.
288, 297 (1960). Petitioner's circumstances, including the
bankruptcy, his inability to obtain financing, and his missing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011