Phillip Moreno - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          beginning 2 years before the date of the sale and ending 2 years            
          after that date.  Section 1034(a) provides that gain is                     
          recognized only to the extent that the individual's adjusted sale           
          price of the old residence exceeds his or her cost of purchasing            
          the new residence.                                                          
               Petitioner did not replace the Goleta Property within the              
          4-year statutory period.  Although petitioner alleges that he did           
          because Rueben Moreno bought the Tamarac Property on petitioner's           
          behalf, we are not persuaded that such was the case.  The name of           
          Rueben Moreno appeared on all of the documents surrounding the              
          closing of the Tamarac Property, Rueben Moreno was the only                 
          person liable on the underlying debt, and Rueben Moreno was the             
          only person listed on the original deed.  It is also relevant               
          that petitioner declared on his 1992 tax return that he had not             
          yet purchased a property to replace the Goleta Property, and that           
          Rueben Moreno had purchased the Tamarac Property before                     
          petitioner's 1992 return was filed.  The record does not support            
          petitioner's allegation that he was "on disability" at the time             
          that Rueben Moreno purchased the Tamarac Property.  In any event            
          the fact remains that it was Rueben Moreno who made the purchase.           
               Even if we were to find that Rueben Moreno purchased the               
          Tamarac Property for petitioner's benefit, which we do not,                 
          petitioner would still be outside the scope of section 1034.                
          Section 1034 is strictly construed, see, e.g., Boesel v.                    
          Commissioner, 65 T.C. 378, 390 (1975); Lokan v. Commissioner,               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011