- 31 -
Canty from the proceeds. * * * Rather than an exchange,
the transaction was a sale with the proceeds put into
an account subject to Canty's control.
On the instant record, we reject for various reasons dis-
cussed below petitioners' position that they are entitled to
nonrecognition treatment under section 1031 with respect to the
gains at issue. First, on that record, we find that petitioners
have failed to establish that Mr. Canty's residence qualifies as
like-kind property under section 1031(a). Mr. Canty testified
that OIP acquired that residence in order to establish a rental
operation consisting of single-family residential units in
southeast Orlando, Florida. Based on our observation of Mr.
Canty's demeanor, we have reservations about his credibility.
Moreover, we have found that Mr. Canty continued to live rent
free in his residence after OIP acquired it on November 20, 1990,
and that OIP acquired no other residential properties during the
early 1990's. We are not required to, and we shall not, rely on
Mr. Canty's uncorroborated testimony about the reason for OIP's
acquisition of Mr. Canty's residence, which testimony serves the
interests of petitioners. See Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d
624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger
v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986).
Second, on the instant record, we find that petitioners have
failed to establish that OIP identified within 45 days after July
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011