- 13 -
In support of her position that petitioner used only 1 acre
of the Clayton property as his residence, respondent heavily
relies on Beckwith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1964-254. We do
not agree that Beckwith is controlling in light of the facts of
the instant case.
In Beckwith, the taxpayer purchased approximately 80 acres
of land, built a residence on the property, and asserted that the
portion of the land not used for business must necessarily be
regarded as his residence. Respondent contends that the facts in
Beckwith, are closely analogous to the facts at issue here. We
disagree. In Beckwith, nearly 40 of the 80 acres purchased by
the taxpayer were held in reserve under a soil conservation
contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
approximately 28 acres consisted of marshland and some wooded
area. With respect to the land held in reserve by the United
States, we found that the taxpayer's residence could not
reasonably be said to include these acres.
In the case at bar, however, there is no restriction on
petitioner's right to use all 51 acres of his land, except to the
extent that he is precluded from building residential structures
on the flood plain because of its archeological importance.
Petitioner may build, and has indeed built, agricultural
structures on such property. Moreover, petitioner uses a portion
of this area for his boarding and breeding business. With
respect to the wooded area in Beckwith, we held that this was not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011