- 22 -
(C.C.A., 4th Cir.), 81 Fed. (2d) 139, 142, citing many
authorities. * * *
The foregoing analysis satisfies us that the entire record
is available for our review to help us determine the gain
realized by and recognized to Pecaris on the sale of the Mall.
The record makes abundantly clear that the cash consideration
paid by or on behalf of Coastal was substantially less than the
stated purchase price of $4.8 million, thereby providing a
toehold for petitioner's argument that we should not impute
realized gain to Pecaris by reference to any more than the cash
consideration actually paid and received. Cf. Don E. Williams
Co. v. Commissioner, 429 U.S. 569, 579-580 (1977) (quoting
Commissioner v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417
U.S. 134, 148-149 (1974)); Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126,
130-132 (1947). But that's not the end of the matter; we must
consider whether the $700,000 of credits is includable in the
amount realized by Pecaris for the purpose of computing its gain
on the sale of the Mall.
II. Tax Treatment of Pecaris on Its Sale to Coastal
The parties have not shown us what the capital accounts of
Pecaris actually looked like on its books before and after the
Mall transaction. It seems likely, from the way Pecaris reported
the transaction on its partnership return and accompanying
schedules, that Pecaris accounted for the credits as if they had
been received from Coastal as cash equivalents or receipts that
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011