- 33 -
With respect to Mr. Canty's testimony on which petitioners
are relying, as we stated above, we have reservations about his
credibility. Moreover, Mr. Canty's testimony that he notified
Mr. Kaplan prior to July 26, 1990, of the identity of the proper-
ties that OIP intended to acquire with the escrowed sales pro-
ceeds is belied by the escrow agreement itself. That agreement
recited that as of July 26, 1990, OIP was "in the process of
identifying a parcel or parcels of real property to be acquired".
In addition, the escrow agreement did not identify any particular
property to be purchased thereunder and did not identify what
portion of the escrowed sales proceeds would be used to purchase
such property and what portion would remain as boot under section
1031. Furthermore, although the escrow agreement required OIP to
identify within 45 days after July 26, 1990, any property that it
wanted Interstate to acquire pursuant to the escrow agreement by
notifying Interstate in writing of the identity of any such
property, OIP did not comply with that requirement. We are not
required to, and we shall not, rely on Mr. Canty's uncorroborated
testimony that, prior to July 26, 1990, he informed Mr. Kaplan of
the identity of the properties to be received by OIP in exchange
for lots 11 and 12 and OIP's 25-percent interests in lots 14 and
15, which testimony serves the interests of petitioners. See
Lerch v. Commissioner, supra; Geiger v. Commissioner, supra;
Tokarski v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011