- 9 - At trial and on brief, petitioners cite Starker v. United States, 602 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1979), as their underlying authority for section 1031 exchange treatment. Their reliance is misplaced. In Starker, the taxpayer transferred timberland to a corporation which, within a previously agreed period, transferred to the taxpayer various parcels of land and certain contract rights. In Starker, unlike the instant case, no cash was ever transferred. Starker held, in relevant part, that the nonsimultaneous transfers of property did not preclude section 1031 treatment.1 Starker does not, however, dispense with the requirement that there in fact be an exchange of property. As previously discussed, petitioners have failed to cross that initial threshold. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that petitioners have failed to meet the requirements for a section 1031 exchange. Interest Expenses and Taxes On Schedule E of their 1993 joint Federal income tax return, in computing a claimed loss from rental real estate, petitioners 1 Subsequent to the decision in Starker v. United States, 602 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1979), Congress amended sec. 1031(a) to impose certain time limitations on the completion of a nonsimultaneous exchange. See sec. 1031(a)(3), as enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, sec. 77(a), 98 Stat. 596. Respondent has not raised, and we do not reach, the issue of whether petitioners have satisfied those statutory requirements.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011