- 5 - "The clear statutory language requires that a new residence be purchased and used by the taxpayer." Marcello v. Commissioner, supra at 502. If a third party owns the new residence, the purchase requirement of section 1034(a) is ordinarily not met. Id. The reasons for having a third party purchase the new residence or the fact that the taxpayer provided the third party with the funds to purchase the new residence are simply not relevant. See De Ocampo v. Commissioner, supra; Allied Marine Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Edmondson v. Commissioner, supra; May v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner chose to form Bay and have Bay purchase the Haifa property. Courts have repeatedly observed that "while a taxpayer is free to organize his affairs as he chooses, nevertheless, once having done so, he must accept the tax consequences of his choice, whether contemplated or not". Commissioner v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co., 417 U.S. 134, 149 (1974). Furthermore, nearly 6 months after Bay purchased the Haifa property petitioner, on the Form 2119, stated that she had not bought or built a new main home. Petitioner failed to obtain record title to the Haifa property, or any other property that would qualify as a new residence, during the replacement period. This alone prevents petitioner from deferring the gain realized on the sale of the California residence. See id.; Boesel v. Commissioner, supra.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011