- 13 -
occurred in the year following the transaction, does not amount
to a rescission. Hope v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. at 1031.
Petitioners present other arguments explaining why they have
sufficient grounds for a unilateral rescission under Rev. Rul.
80-58, 1980-1 C.B. 181. In light of our conclusions above, that
petitioners confused the buyers with the agent, that neither
buyers nor seller were put back into their pre-sale positions,
and that a settlement is not a rescission, we need not address
these arguments.
2. Involuntary Conversion
Section 1033(a) allows nonrecognition of gain "If property
(as a result of its destruction in whole or in part, theft,
seizure, or requisition or condemnation or threat or imminence
thereof) is compulsorily or involuntarily converted".
Petitioners contend that the sale of the WalMart stock by Merrill
Lynch constituted a "seizure", and thus there was an involuntary
conversion under section 1033(a). Petitioners look to Webster's
Third International Dictionary (1966) and define seizure as "to
take by force" or "to take hold of." Because the sale by Merrill
Lynch was unauthorized, they argue, the stock was "seized".
Petitioners equate Merrill Lynch's actions with common-law
conversion. Since a common-law conversion has occurred, they
assert, they should be given the benefit of section 1033. We
think that petitioner's argument stretches the statute beyond
permissible limits. Petitioners' arguments to the contrary,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011