12
transactions and have allowed nonsimultaneous exchanges, see
Starker v. United States, 602 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1979); deposit
of proceeds into a bank account controlled by an independent
third party before an exchange property is located, J.H. Baird
Publishing Co. v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 608 (1962); transactions
in which the intermediary did not acquire legal title to the
exchange property, Biggs v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 905, affd. 632
F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1980); and change from a sale transaction to
an exchange transaction even though the property to be received
on the exchange was not identified as of the date the original
agreement was made, Alderson v. Commissioner, 317 F.2d 790 (9th
Cir. 1963), revg. 38 T.C. 215 (1962).
These multiparty cases have explained that section 1031
"only requires that as the end result of an agreement, property
be received as consideration for property transferred by the
taxpayer without his receipt of, or control over, cash". Coupe
v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 394, 409 (1969).
On the other hand, receipt of or control over cash proceeds
by a taxpayer will prevent characterization of a multiparty
transaction as an exchange. In the Deficit Reduction Act of
1984, Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 77(a), 98 Stat. 596, an attempt was
made to clarify some of the uncertainties that exist in this area
by the enactment of a new section 1031(a)(3), which provides:
For purposes of this subsection, any property received
by the taxpayer shall be treated as property which is
not like-kind property if--
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011