- 8 -
Petitioner objects to this computation. She argues that, as part
of the divorce agreement, the residence was quitclaimed to her in
lieu of any claim by her to alimony. Because of this fact, she
objects to respondent’s division of the property into two
interests and having given her “credit” for only one-half. As we
understand it, petitioner’s argument is that the basis of the
residence should have been equal to its full value, not one-half
its value plus one-half its cost. Respondent’s position on the
basis of the residence is in accordance with the law, however,
and petitioner has not shown any of respondent’s factual
determinations to be in error. Taking into account respondent’s
assumption that the division was an equal yet taxable division,
respondent’s calculations are in accordance with Carrieres v.
Commissioner, supra, in that petitioner received a basis in the
residence equal to one-half its cost plus one-half its value at
the time of the divorce. If petitioner is arguing that the
division was equal but nontaxable, the result of her argument
would be recognition of a higher amount of gain because
petitioner’s basis in the residence would have been its original
cost (less depreciation), not its fair market value at the time
of the divorce. See id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011