- 45 -
to that promissory note, which indicates to us that the purported
transfer from OIP to FIIC should not be respected for tax pur-
poses.
In addition, Mr. Canty testified that he believed that the
Vero Beach property was worth much more than the $490,000 that
OIP paid to acquire it on December 11, 1990. Thus, according to
Mr. Canty's own testimony, the alleged transfer by OIP to FIIC of
the Vero Beach property on February 28, 1992, must have been for
less than that property's fair market value, another indication
that that transfer should not be respected for tax purposes.
Finally, we note that petitioners presented no evidence
showing that OIP made any payments on the alleged note in the
amount of $950,000 that it claims it paid to acquire the 34.3-
acre parcel of the Vero Beach property from IRF, another reason
supporting respondent's position that that alleged transfer
should not be respected for tax purposes.
Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we
find that petitioners have failed to show that OIP's alleged
purchase of the 34.3-acre parcel of the Vero Beach property on
January 20, 1994, should be recognized for purposes of section
1033. Consequently, we sustain respondent's determination with
respect to the gain realized by OIP as a result of the condemna-
tion of the CCJV real property.
Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011