- 45 -
him. Alice Berger was awarded Woodbine; she alone reaped the
benefits of ownership from March 14 until November 17, 1989.
Among the eight factors under State law recited by Grodt &
McKay Realty, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, only factor (1), legal
title (and that only to the extent of one-half ownership of the
real property), clearly remained with Howard Berger in the period
between March 1 and June 23, 1989. We have just seen that for
purposes of factor (8), Alice Berger was the party receiving
profits from the operation and sale of the property during that
period. In addition, the terms of the settlement agreement
rendered the transfer of full ownership to Alice Berger legally
enforceable, for purposes of factor (4); gave her the right of
possession, for purposes of factor (5); probably transferred to
her the risk of loss, for purposes of factor (7); and left her
with the obligation to pay property taxes, for purposes of factor
(6). The terms of the settlement agreement also manifested the
intent of the parties to complete the transfer, for purposes of
factor (2), which was done in due course.12 This leaves only the
acquisition of an equity in the property, factor (3),
12Alice Berger tries to make something of the fact that the
transfer documents of June 23 and Nov. 17, 1989, were nothing
more than conveyances of real property. She argues that she
never received and never transferred the Woodbine business,
including the bank accounts and receivables, and so she should
not be taxed on the income of the business, nor treated as having
sold these assets. We are satisfied, however, on the basis of
the entire record, that she had the benefits and burdens of
ownership of the business during the period Mar. 14-Nov. 17,
1989, as evidenced by the substantial draw payments she received
during this period, and that the $680,000 price she received was
based on the Woodbine assets and business in their entirety.
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011