- 35 -
ferred by the taxpayer without his receipt of, or control over,
cash."). On that record, we further find that although the terms
of the escrow agreement imposed controls on OIP's access to the
escrowed sales proceeds prior to the expiration of 180 days after
July 26, 1990, Mr. Hefferan violated those terms and permitted
Mr. Canty, acting on behalf of OIP, to control the disbursement
of those proceeds prior to the expiration of that 180-day period
for purposes other than the acquisition of replacement property.
Consequently, the present case is distinguishable from the cases
on which petitioners are relying involving taxpayers who did not
receive, or have control over, cash in multiparty transactions
that the courts characterized as exchanges under section 1031.
To support their position that OIP did not have control over
the escrowed sales proceeds, petitioners rely on the testimony of
Mr. Hefferan and "his clear fiduciary obligations under the
ethical canons of the Florida Bar." Although Mr. Hefferan
(1) signed the escrow agreement as Interstate's trustee,
(2) testified that he understood his position under the escrow
agreement to be that of Interstate's trustee, and (3) had fidu-
ciary obligations to Interstate as Interstate's trustee, we find
certain of Mr. Hefferan's actions with respect to the escrow fund
and the escrow agreement to be inconsistent with the terms of
that agreement.
The record establishes that Mr. Hefferan had no recollection
of ever consulting with Mr. Kaplan, Xway's president, or any
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011