- 8 -
to acquisition cost from the ambit of the Internal Revenue Code.
Therefore, because respondent also contends that the $65,000 was
not such a supplemental relocation assistance payment,
respondent’s position is that to the extent the $65,000 exceeded
petitioner’s basis in her residence, the difference is taxable as
capital gain. Respondent additionally argues that the $65,000
fails to qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the
involuntary conversion or residential rollover provisions set
forth in sections 1033 and 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(Section 1034 was repealed by section 312(b) of the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-34, 111 Stat. 839, generally
effective for sales and exchanges of principal residences after
May 6, 1997. The section 1034 rollover provision was replaced by
a revised and expanded section 121.)
We agree with respondent that the $65,000 received by
petitioner in condemnation of her residence is not a payment of a
type exempted from taxation by the Relocation Act. Furthermore,
because petitioner apparently does not contend that
nonrecognition treatment pursuant to section 1033 or 1034 is
warranted, we need not reach respondent’s position thereon.
Petitioner made no attempt at trial or on brief to establish her
entitlement to benefit from these sections and instead
characterized respondent’s argument regarding nonrecognition
under the Internal Revenue Code as “immaterial in the Court’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011