- 8 - Petitioners bear the burden of showing their entitlement to the nonrecognition of income benefits of section 1034 by proving that they have satisfied all of the section's requirements. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). Income tax provisions which exempt taxpayers under given circumstances from paying taxes or permit them to postpone taxes are narrowly construed. Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 328 (1995); Commissioner v. Baertschi, 412 F.2d 494, 499 (6th Cir. 1969), revg. and remanding 49 T.C. 289 (1967). In fact, this Court has indicated that section 1034 must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Boesel v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 378, 390 (1975); Lokan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-380. Although petitioners purchased the Ely residence within 2 years of selling the Mequon residence, the adjusted sale price of the Mequon residence ($248,809) exceeded the cost of the Ely residence by $182,221, which in turn exceeded the $40,140 gain realized on the sale. Thus, because petitioners did not meet the requirements of section 1034, they must include the $40,140 gain realized in their 1993 income. b. Constitutional Arguments Petitioners contest the constitutionality of any statutory provisions or Internal Revenue Service (IRS) actions (or inactions) which result in capital gain from the sale of their Mequon residence, arguing as follows: (1) The capital gain respondentPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011