- 16 -
December 1989. Petitioners claim that by October 6, 1989, they
had decided to purchase Pleasant Hill and Skyland. However, they
rely solely on their own testimony in that regard. Apart from
their testimony there is no evidence that they saw the Skyland
property before October 12, 1989 or the Pleasant Hill property
before January of 1990. Even if they had seen either property on
the dates alleged, that would likely not be sufficient to meet
the identification requirement.
Although petitioners are not specifically educated in tax
matters, they are sophisticated real estate investors.
Petitioners repeatedly discussed the identification requirement
with their advisers and were advised as to the adequate measures
of identification. We find that petitioners understood the
importance of timely identification. Indeed, they asked Ms. Love
to identify Skyland to Mr. Clack when they made a verbal offer.
Nevertheless, they never disclosed their alleged interest in the
Pleasant Hill or Skyland properties during the identification
period to anyone, not to Mr. Clack, their real estate agents, or
the prior owners. Petitioners failed to mention either property
to Mr. Van Voorhis in September 1989 when Mr. Van Voorhis
prepared an identification letter to Mr. Clack. Moreover,
petitioner husband did not indicate any prior interest in
Pleasant Hill and acted as if he were unfamiliar with the
property when Mr. Van Voorhis first approached him about it. As
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011