- 8 -
the property relinquished in the exchange.1 The parties dispute
whether petitioner identified the East Boulevard property within
45 days after he transferred the Monroe Road and Seventh Street
properties. Petitioner contends that he orally identified the
East Boulevard property within 45 days after he transferred the
relinquished properties and points out that he saw no other
property after he saw the East Boulevard property on February 27,
1990. Respondent argues (1) that an oral identification is not
sufficient under section 1031(a)(3)(A), and (2) that even if an
oral identification is sufficient, petitioner failed to identify
replacement property, orally or otherwise, within 45 days.
We are not convinced that petitioner identified the East
Boulevard property within 45 days after February 5 or 14; i.e.,
by March 22 or 31. This conclusion is supported by petitioner's
1990 tax return. Petitioner reported on his 1990 tax return that
he identified the replacement property on April 1, 1990. April
1, 1990, is the 55th day after petitioner sold the Monroe Road
property and the 46th day after he sold the Seventh Street
property. Statements in a tax return are admissions and will not
be overcome without cogent evidence that they are wrong. Waring
1In May 1990, the Secretary proposed a regulation requiring
written identification of replacement property. Sec. 1.1031(a)-
3(c), Proposed Income Tax Regs., 55 Fed. Reg. 20283 (May 16,
1990). This section was adopted in 1991 as sec. 1.1031(k)-1(c),
Income Tax Regs., by T.D. 8346, 1991-C.B. 150, 156. The
regulation applies to transfers of property made on or after June
10, 1991. At the time of the transactions in issue no
regulations were in effect.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011