- 10 -
Petitioners’ claim of a distressed sale is unpersuasive
because at all relevant times they did not receive any offers for
the Stewart property. Even assuming arguendo that petitioners
sold under distress, the record demonstrates that there was not a
willing buyer at any time between June through November 1995 when
the property was listed from $484,900, to $469,000, then
$459,000, and finally $435,000, which petitioners contend is a
price far below the purported FMV of $480,000. Both Mrs. Abrams
and Mr. Lilly also testified that in 1995 real estate values were
at their lowest levels especially for high-end homes. However,
Mr. Lilly testified that a house similar to the Stewart property
would have likely sold in a 6-month period of time if it were
listed at its FMV. The fact that the property would not sell for
$435,000 in November 1995 and that it did sell for $435,000 in
December 1996 indicates that the Stewart property was worth at
least as much in 1996 as it had been in 1995. Thus, we do not
find that the sales price of $435,000 was the result of a
distressed sale. See Adams v. Commissioner, supra (held that the
property’s sales price was below FMV because the taxpayer was
under a threat of foreclosure, was 2 years behind in paying
property taxes and the buyers were taking subject to an existing
lease on the property).
Further, petitioners bear the burden to prove what the FMV
of the property was in July 1995. Petitioners did not obtain an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011