- 6 -
subtitle, the entire amount of the gain or loss * * * on the sale
or exchange of property shall be recognized."
Petitioners' brief does not dispute the Commissioner's
determination that the $23,000 cash and the discharge of Eugene's
$31,200 indebtedness to MUI were includable in the computation of
petitioners' capital gain for 1990. Nor is there any controversy
over petitioners' right to use the installment method. However,
petitioners do challenge the Commissioner's determination that
the entire amount of the redetermined sales proceeds was
reportable on their 1990 return. They contend that they are
liable for the taxes on only 45 percent of the proceeds of the
sale. They also object to being charged with the entire amount
of the interest received in 1990 on the long-term note, and
contend that they are accountable for only 45 percent of that
amount. They take like positions with respect to 1991 to the
extent that capital gain from the sale of MUI stock and interest
on the long-term note are involved.
The Government argues that petitioner was the owner of the
entire 150 shares of MUI and is chargeable with all the gain
realized. The difficulty with the Government's position is that
it fails to recognize just what the decree of the divorce court
covered. The court found that "the principal remaining assets of
the marriage consist of Plaintiff's [Eugene] business interests
in Defendant Maintenance Unlimited, Inc., of which Plaintiff
[Eugene] owns fifty percent (50%) of the issued and outstanding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011