- 8 -
Cir. 1967), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-299 (gain recognized where
title to new residence was placed in the name of the taxpayer's
mother); Snowa v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-336 (gain
recognized where divorced taxpayer purchased new residence where
title to new residence was jointly placed in the names of
taxpayer and her new spouse and the taxpayer’s cost of purchasing
her interest in the new residence exceeded the adjusted sale
price for her interest in old residence); May v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1974-54 (gain recognized where title to new residence
was placed in the name of the taxpayer's daughter). Generally,
if there is a shift in title from the taxpayer to someone other
than the taxpayer, then the nonrecognition provided for in
section 1034 is denied. Marcello v. Commissioner, supra.
Accordingly, unintended recognition of gain may arise when a
married taxpayer’s contribution to the purchase price of a new
residence is less than his or her share of the sale price
received from the old residence, and title to the new residence
is held in a different way than it was held in the old residence.
Cf. Murphy v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 111 (1994). Recognizing
that difficulties may arise when married taxpayers buy and sell
property, section 1034(g) provides a limited exception to the
general ownership and purchase requirements as between spouses.
Where both the old residence and the new residence are used by
the taxpayer and the taxpayer's same spouse as their principal
residence, they can file a special consent election under section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011