-22-
United States v. White Dental Co., 274 U.S. 398 (1927); A.J.
Indus., Inc. v. United States, 503 F.2d 660, 670 (9th Cir. 1974);
CRST, Inc. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1249, 1257 (1989), affd. 909
F.2d 1146 (8th Cir. 1990).
In determining a taxpayer's intent to abandon, the
"subjective judgment of the taxpayer * * * as to whether the
business assets will in the future have value is entitled to
great weight and a court is not justified in substituting its
business judgment for a reasonable, well-founded judgment of the
taxpayer." A.J. Indus., Inc. v. United States, supra at 670.
Here petitioner formed an intent to abandon the partnership
interest as well as the road equipment sometime after 1987 when
the contract was canceled and no payments were forthcoming.
The missing element, however, is an affirmative act of
abandonment. An affirmative act to abandon must be ascertained
from all the facts and surrounding circumstances, United Cal.
Bank v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 437, 451 (1964), affd. per curiam
340 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1965), and "the Tax Court [is] entitled to
look beyond the taxpayer's formal characterization", Laport v.
Commissioner, 671 F.2d 1028, 1032 (7th Cir. 1982), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1980-355. "The mere intention alone to abandon is not, nor
is non-use alone, sufficient to accomplish abandonment." Beus v.
Commissioner, 261 F.2d 176, 180 (9th Cir. 1958), affg. 28 T.C.
1133 (1957). Petitioner has not shown an affirmative act of
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011