Donald DeCleene and Doris DeCleene - Page 30

                                       - 30 -                                         

          189 F.2d 14 (7th Cir. 1951), on the ground that “It was clear               
          that the contractor did not own the other property which, it was            
          claimed, was transferred to the taxpayer in the exchange.”   As             
          already indicated, we have found dispositive in the case at hand            
          that WLC never acquired beneficial ownership of the Lawrence                
          Drive property.8  WLC merely served as an accommodation party,              
          providing the parking place for legal title to the Lawrence Drive           
          property, while petitioner remained the beneficial owner before             
          and after and throughout the 3-month focal period of the subject            
               When petitioner conveyed to WLC title to the Lawrence Drive            
          property, WLC became contractually bound to reconvey it, and                
          petitioner was bound to take it back, prior to yearend (not much            
          more than 3 months).  Indeed, under Wisconsin law, both parties             
          were entitled to specific performance of the other party’s                  
          obligation.  See Anderson v. Onsager, 455 N.W.2d 885 (Wis. 1990);           
          Heins v. Thompson & Flieth L. Co., 163 N.W. 173 (Wis. 1917).                
          It’s difficult to imagine commitments more binding than the                 
          reciprocal obligations of petitioner and WLC in the case at hand.           
          The conveyance and reconveyance of title to the Lawrence Drive              

          8 We also observe that J.H. Baird Publg. Co. v.                             
          Commissioner, 39 T.C. 608, 618 (1962), on which petitioners rely,           
          applied the concept of beneficial ownership in the taxpayer’s               
          favor.  Petitioners have failed to persuade us that the concept             
          of beneficial ownership is an illegitimate importation into the             
          tax law of qualified like-kind exchanges.                                   

Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011