- 10 -
and Black had not yet approved the property. According to
petitioner, Black gave his approval in early March.
Petitioner testified that he instructed Smith on February 27,
1990, that "we would like to pursue" the purchase of that
building, but Smith did not corroborate that or act in the
following weeks as if he had been instructed to arrange the
purchase. Petitioner did not begin to negotiate the price with
the sellers until May. There is no evidence that his concerns
(other than approval by Black) were satisfied before May. We
give more weight to his statement on his 1990 tax return that he
identified the property as replacement property on April 1, than
to his trial testimony that he identified it earlier.
We conclude that petitioner has not shown that he identified
the East Boulevard property as replacement property within the
time required by section 1031(a)(3)(A); i.e., by late March,
1990. Petitioner may not defer recognition of the gains realized
from the sale of the Monroe Road or Seventh Street properties
under section 1031(a)(1) because he did not identify replacement
property within 45 days after the date he relinquished either
property. Sec. 1031(a)(3)(A).
C. Respondent's Other Contentions
Because we find that petitioner did not identify replacement
property on or before March 30, 1990, we need not decide
respondent's contention that an oral identification does not meet
the identification requirement under section 1031(a)(3)(A).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011