- 2 -
After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether
petitioner is entitled to nonrecognition of gain from the sale of
property located at 1276 Beverly Green Drive, Beverly Hills,
California (the California residence) under section 1034(a).3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties submitted this case fully stipulated pursuant to
Rule 122, and the stipulated facts are so found. The stipulation
of settled issues, the stipulation of facts, the first
supplemental stipulation of facts, and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in
Haifa, Israel, at the time she filed her petition.
On January 20, 1989, petitioner sold the California
residence. At the time of the sale, the California residence was
petitioner's principal residence within the meaning of section
1034(a). Petitioner realized a gain on the sale of the
California residence in the amount of $409,199.
1(...continued)
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 Respondent concedes that petitioner is not liable for the
addition to tax pursuant to sec. 6651(a)(1) and the penalty
pursuant to sec. 6662(a).
3 In the petition, petitioner argued that respondent is
barred by the expiration of the statutory period of limitations
from assessing the deficiency for 1989. Petitioner did not
address this issue on brief; therefore, we find that petitioner
abandoned this issue. Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 683
(1989). Furthermore, it is clear from the facts of this case
that the period of limitations was open when respondent issued
the statutory notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011