- 6 -
T.C. Memo. 1979-380; Bazzell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1967-101, and the key to nonrecognition afforded therein turns on
maintaining continuity of title, Starker v. United States,
602 F.2d 1341, 1351 (9th Cir. 1979); Allied Marine Sys., Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-101; see also Edmondson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-393. When an individual disposes
of his or her residence, the new residence must be placed in the
taxpayer's name to defer gain under section 1034. Marcello v.
Commissioner, 380 F.2d 499, 502 (5th Cir. 1967), affg. on this
issue and remanding on other issues T.C. Memo. 1964-299 (gain
recognized where title to the new residence was placed in the
name of the taxpayer's mother); Snowa v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-336 (gain recognized where the divorced taxpayer purchased a
new residence where the title to the new residence was jointly
placed in the names of the taxpayer and her new spouse and the
taxpayer's cost of purchasing her interest in the new residence
exceeded the adjusted sale price for her interest in the old
residence); May v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-54 (gain
recognized where title to the new residence was placed in the
name of the taxpayer's daughter); see also De Ocampo v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-161; sec. 1.1034-1(b)(9), Income
Tax Regs. If there is a shift in title from the taxpayer to
someone other than the taxpayer, nonrecognition under section
1034 is usually denied. Marcello v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011