- 8 -
residence prior to the June 21, 1990, deadline. Respondent,
relying on utility and telephone usage at the temporary townhouse
and the replacement or principal residence (Fairway), contends
that the record does not support petitioners' contentions and
proffered testimony.
Section 1.1034-1(c)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs., contains the
following standard for use of a principal residence:
Whether or not property is used by the taxpayer as his
residence, and whether or not property is used by the
taxpayer as his principal residence (in the case of a
taxpayer using more than one property as a residence),
depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each
case, including the good faith of the taxpayer. * * *
Section 1.1034-1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs., explains further that
if the taxpayer, during the period within which the
purchase and use of the new residence must be made in
order to have any gain on the sale of the old residence
not recognized under this section, purchases more than
one property which is used by him as his principal
residence * * *, only the last of such properties shall
be considered a new residence * * *
Petitioners bear the burden of showing their entitlement to
the benefits of section 1034 by proving they have satisfied all
of the section's requirements. Thomas v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
206, 242 (1989) (citing Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933)
and Rule 142(a)). In particular, petitioners must show here that
they used the Fairway residence as their principal residence. In
that regard, we said in Stolk v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 345, 353,
355 (1963), affd. 326 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1964):
The elements of residence are the fact of abode and the
intention of remaining, and the concept of residence is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011