- 8 - Petitioners had unfettered and unrestrained control over the money in the Provident Central Credit Union account, which was in their names. Although the funds were used to finance improvements at the Big Sur property and to reimburse petitioner husband for the cash downpayment on the Big Sur property, petitioner husband conceded at trial that payment could have been made out of the account for any purpose. These circumstances strongly support the conclusion that the Pacific Grove sale was an independent transfer of property for money consideration rather than part of an exchange. See Carlton v. United States, 385 F.2d 238, 243 (5th Cir. 1967); Hillyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-214; Nixon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-318. At most, the circumstances relating to petitioners’ establishment and use of the Provident Central Credit Union account evidence their belated intent to avail themselves of section 1031 treatment and the Elvins’ awareness of their intent. The circumstances do not, however, suggest any mutuality of intent between petitioners and the Elvins, much less between petitioners and Marcia D’Esopo, to effect an exchange. It is well settled that a taxpayer’s unilateral intent to undertake an exchange does not govern the tax consequences where no reciprocal transfer of property actually occurs. See Bezdjian v. Commissioner, supra at 218; Garcia v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 491, 498 (1983); Rogers v. Commissioner, supra at 136.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011