- 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