- 14 -
1031(a)(3)(A) does not expressly require written identification
or specify to whom identification must be made. Petitioners also
argue that the legislative history for section 1031(a)(3) does
not clarify the required method of identifying replacement
property. The conference report provides
The conference agreement follows the
Senate amendment except that transferors are
permitted 45 days after the transfer to
designate the property to be received * * *.
The conferees note that the designation
requirement in the conference agreement may
be met by designating the property to be
received in the contract between the parties.
It is anticipated that the designation
requirement will be satisfied if the contract
between the parties specifies a limited
number of properties that may be transferred
and the particular property to be transferred
will be determined by contingencies beyond
the control of both parties. * * * [H. Conf.
Rept. 98-861, at 866 (1984), 1984-3 C.B.
(Vol. 2) 1, 120.]
Congress' primary concern in amending section 1031(a)(3) was to
prevent long periods of delay between the exchange of properties,
as occurred in Starker v. United States, 602 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.
1979). H. Conf. Rept. 98-861, supra, 1984-3 C.B. at 120.
Congress added the 45- and 180-day requirements for like-kind
exchanges to address this concern.
It is not necessary for us to decide whether identification
must be in writing. Rather, we must decide whether the steps
taken by petitioners were sufficient. Petitioners have no
credible evidence that they had considered Pleasant Hill or
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011