Phillip Lee Allen and Carolyn F. Allen - Page 9

                                                 - 9 -                                                   

            petitioners’ willingness to give up any claim for such in return                             
            for settlement close to the amount of actual damages.  At that                               
            time, actual damages were estimated at $236,000,3 and the amount                             
            to be paid to petitioners, including the $102,000 paid pursuant                              
            to the earlier arbitration and the proposed $130,000 settlement,                             
            was $232,000.  Allstate’s counsel corroborated that testimony by                             
            stating that the money was paid to settle the claim for the cost                             
            to repair the property and that no amount was paid to settle any                             
            punitive damage claim.  For this reason, we find that Allstate                               
            paid petitioners with the intent to compensate them, under their                             
            homeowners’ policy, for actual damages incurred in the                                       
            involuntary conversion of their property.                                                    
                  The second prong of nonrecognition of gain under section                               
            1033 is that the money must be spent to replace the converted                                
            property with similar property.  Sec. 1033(a)(2)(A).  The funds                              
            may also be used to restore a converted property “so that it                                 
            could be used in the same manner as it was used prior to the                                 
            * * * [involuntary conversion].”  Rev. Rul. 67-254, 1967-2 C.B.                              
            269, 270 (approving of the use of conversion compensation to                                 
            rearrange existing facilities and build a new building on the                                
            remaining property after conversion); see also Rentz v.                                      


                  3  The actual cost of repairs was more than the $269,467.20                            
            petitioners eventually received in connection with this loss.                                
            Respondent never questioned petitioners’ treatment of the                                    
            additional $37,000 payment from the Lane litigation.                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011