- 18 -
proposition that taxpayers may disavow the form of their
transactions to challenge the tax consequences flowing therefrom
"only by adducing proof which in an action between the parties to
the agreement would be admissible to alter that construction or
to show its unenforceability because of mistake, undue influence,
fraud, duress, etc.” Id. at 775.
Respondent argued that, under Danielson and Estate of
Durkin, petitioner was bound by the terms of the purchase
agreement, which characterized the transfer of the Mall, and the
subsequent tax reporting of the transaction by Pecaris and
petitioner's partners in accordance with the terms of the Pecaris
partnership agreement, as a straight cash sale of the Mall for
$4.8 million with 25 percent of the distributive share of the
Pecaris partnership gain therefrom allocable to petitioner.
Insofar as Estate of Durkin v. Commissioner, supra, is
concerned, we observe that petitioner did not conceal or
otherwise fail to report the transaction on his income tax
return. Petitioners' income tax return disclosed that petitioner
was taking a return position inconsistent with that of Pecaris
and his fellow partners, Messrs. Boyas and Spillas. Petitioner's
concealment was in failing to disclose to Messrs. Boyas and
Spillas his position on the other side of the Mall transaction as
the dominant partner of Coastal, and in failing to carry through
with them to request and obtain amendments of the purchase
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011