-6-
has not proven that her husband provided all of the consideration
used to purchase the property.
The only evidence petitioner has submitted concerning the
original consideration used to purchase the CPW shares is her
sworn affidavit that her husband provided the entire
consideration. Petitioner also notes that she and her husband
resided in New York, a noncommunity property State, at the time
of purchase. Assuming arguendo that the contribution rule of
section 2040(a) is applicable, we are still left with the
unresolved factual dispute as to the source of the consideration
used to purchase the shares. We do not resolve disagreements
over relevant factual issues in a summary judgment proceeding,
and, consequently, petitioner's motion for summary judgment is
denied. See Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982);
Hoeme v. Commissioner, supra at 20.
Respondent's motion, however, does not implicate any factual
issues. Respondent argues that, pursuant to section 2040(b),
petitioner is entitled to a stepped-up basis in only 50 percent
of the CPW shares, regardless of whether petitioner or her
husband furnished the consideration for the purchase.
Accordingly, a decision on respondent's motion may be rendered as
a matter of law.
Section 1001 governs the determination of gains and losses
on the disposition of property. Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U.S.
300, 304 (1983). Generally, gain or loss from the disposition of
Page: 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