Michele Anthony - Page 9

                                        - 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