- 11 -
petitioner the disputed amount. In this regard, the cases of
Green v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-503, affd. per curiam
846 F.2d 870 (2d Cir. 1988), Cotnam v. Commissioner, 263 F.2d
119, 122 (5th Cir. 1959), revg. in part and affg. in part 28 T.C.
947 (1957), and Braddock v. United States, 434 F.2d 631 (9th Cir.
1970), are factually distinguishable from the case at hand. The
taxpayer in Green, unlike petitioner, sued her partner's estate
as a creditor, seeking to recover the value of services that she
rendered to him. The same is true with respect to the taxpayer
in Cotnam, where the appellate court noted that "The pleadings in
the * * * [State court] proceedings show clearly that Mrs.
Cotnam's claim was based on the theory of a contract for
services." As to Braddock, the payor there, unlike the payor
here, had a legal obligation to pay the taxpayer for her services
in cooking, cleaning, and helping him with his farm.
Our conclusion that Mr. Kent paid petitioner the disputed
amount for her interest in the property does not end our inquiry.
Petitioner's sale of her property interest to Mr. Kent is a
taxable event for which she must recognize gain to the extent
that the selling price exceeds her basis in the property. Sec.
1001(a). As to her basis, the record indicates that petitioner
received her interest in the property by way of numerous gifts
that Mr. Kent made to her throughout their relationship.
Petitioner's declaration depicts a setting under which Mr. Kent
repeatedly "gave" her property, and the facts of this case
support the conclusion that he made these "gifts" with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011