Richard L. Hutcheson and Deloris A. Hutcheson - Page 13

                                                 - 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