- 17 -
would satisfy the statutory requirement. It does not appear to
mean, even by implication, that an identification of multiple
properties without a contingency would not satisfy the
identification requirement. As with the number of replacement
properties that may be identified, we similarly consider the
conference report inconclusive as to any contingency requirement.
As noted above, the Commissioner did not see fit to adopt such a
requirement in the regulations. We do not believe that our
construction of the statute as not imposing a contingency
requirement would make the identification requirement
meaningless. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Congress
intended that an identification of replacement properties would
satisfy the identification requirement only if the particular
property to be received were to be determined by contingencies
beyond the control of the parties to an exchange.
Consequently, we conclude that petitioner made a valid
identification of replacement properties within the statutorily
prescribed period and that Hillview constitutes property of a
like kind received in exchange for petitioner’s interest in RPDS
pursuant to section 1031(a)(3).
Petitioner’s exchange of his interest in RPDS for the
Sheffield lot, however, does not qualify as a like-kind exchange
pursuant to the provisions of section 1031(a)(3). As noted
above, section 1031(a)(3)(B) provides that, in order to be
considered like-kind property, replacement property may not be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011