- 14 -
get. Unlike the situation in Willis, the sale of the
downed timber was dictated by the damage caused by the
hurricane. [Rev. Rul. 80-175, supra, 1980-2 C.B. at
232.]
The taxpayer in the 1980 ruling apparently intended to grow
trees and/or hold timberland for sale at a particular maturity.
The hurricane caused the taxpayer to involuntarily sell/use the
trees prior to the time intended for harvest or sale. The
taxpayer’s intended purpose or use was only affected as to
timing, and the sale was prior to the time the taxpayer intended
to sell or harvest.
Returning to the disagreement here, petitioner contends
that, at the time of the damage, it did not intend to harvest the
damaged trees, so that the conversion was involuntary and within
the meaning of the statute.10 Petitioner argues that a taxpayer
may not have a choice as to whether to dispose of damaged
property, but a taxpayer may have a choice as to how to dispose
of damaged property.
Respondent contends that petitioner should not be entitled
to such deferral because of its choice to further process the
10 Petitioner also relies on the published revenue rulings
and on a number of private letter rulings (PLRs), which it
contends permitted sec. 1033 deferral in factual circumstances
substantially similar to those we consider here. On brief, the
parties devoted a relatively large portion of their arguments to
discussing the PLRs. Although we have considered the rationale
used by the parties in discussing the rulings, the parties and
the Court are statutorily proscribed from citing the PLRs as
precedent. See sec. 6110(k)(3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011