- 2 -
as respondent contends. Our decision on this issue depends on
whether we decide, as respondent contends, that petitioners
exchanged, in addition to real estate, assets which do not
qualify under section 1031, such as property held for sale (i.e.,
sand), certain business operating permits, goodwill, and going-
concern value, or whether we decide, as petitioners contend, that
petitioners exchanged only property that qualifies under section
1031.1 We agree with petitioners, and hold that all of the gain
they received in the exchange qualifies under section 1031.
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in
effect for the relevant periods. Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
A. Petitioners
Petitioners are married and lived in Port Richey, Florida,
when they filed the petition in this case.
B. The Real Property
Petitioners owned a mobile home park called Brentwood
Estates in Pasco County, Florida. On April 25, 1984, they paid
$766,808.78 to buy about 76.5 acres of vacant land zoned for a
1Respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that
petitioners could not defer any gain under sec. 1031 for their
exchange of property in 1991. Respondent conceded at trial and
in the posttrial brief that the land qualifies for like-kind
exchange treatment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011