Michael Hillyer and Teresa Hillyer, et al. - Page 15

                                         15                                           
               Nevertheless, an examination of the facts in this record               
          leads us to conclude that the disposition of the Phoenix property           
          in August 1991 and the acquisition of the Coggeshall and Inness             
          properties in 1992 do not qualify for nontaxable treatment under            
          section 1031(a), because although the alleged escrow agreement              
          with the Citizens National Bank was not with the corporation or a           
          disqualified person, as described in section 1.1031(k)-                     
          1(g)(3)(ii)(A), Income Tax Regs., nevertheless the escrow                   
          agreement did not expressly limit the corporation's right to                
          receive or use the cash held in the escrow account, as specified            
          by section 1.1031(k)-1(g)(3)(ii)(B), Income Tax Regs.  The facts            
          show here that the so-called escrow agreement entered into                  
          between the corporation, the Citizens National Bank, and Penn-              
          Daniels was nothing more than a facade.  At the settlement of the           
          Phoenix property disposition to Penn-Daniels on August 9, 1991,             
          the stipulated facts recite that the settlement funds were                  
          actually received by the corporation, and thereafter were                   
          transferred to the bank under the so-called escrow agreement.               
          Further, there were no restrictions upon the right of the                   
          corporation, as transferor of the Phoenix property, to use the              
          proceeds in any way which the corporation saw fit.  The money was           
          simply held by the bank for future disposition at the direction             
          of the corporation.  The only requirement was that the                      
          corporation designate the desired replacement properties in 45              
          days, and the bank was not required to hold the funds for the               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011