- 8 -
In this case, incident to her divorce from Mr. Gibbs,
petitioner transferred her interest in SuperAmerica to him for
$122,500, a transaction that falls squarely within the scope of
section 1041. Presumably because it is not important here, the
record contains no evidence establishing petitioner's basis, if
any, in SuperAmerica. See secs. 1011 and 1012. Consequently, it
is unknown whether petitioner realized a gain as a result of the
transfer. To the extent that she did, respondent has not
proposed that any such gain be recognized.
Although petitioner recognizes, as reflected in the
stipulation of facts, that each payment consisted partially of
principal and partially of interest, her section 1041 argument
makes no such distinction, but is directed to the entire amount
of each payment. To the extent that petitioner did realize a
gain from the transfer of her interest in SuperAmerica to Mr.
Gibbs, presumably some part of that gain is included in the
principal portion of each payment that petitioner received from
him. However, the issue in this case has nothing to do with any
gain that petitioner might have realized from the transfer.
Petitioner mistakenly equates the interest portion of each
installment payment with any gain presumably included in the
principal portion. The interest petitioner was paid pursuant to
the divorce decree, and the gain she might have realized upon the
transfer of SuperAmerica to Mr. Gibbs, are two distinct items
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011