Violet A. Reynolds - Page 11

                                       - 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