- 16 -
possibility that the partial damage to petitioner’s trees might
have been relatively small or resulted in a nominal amount of
reduction in gain is not a reason to deny relief. In addition,
if petitioner’s salvage efforts were more successful than other
taxpayers that is not a reason for denial of relief under section
1033.
Petitioner’s circumstances fulfill the statutory purpose and
intent. There was unanticipated tax liability due to various
casualties that damaged the trees. Petitioner seeks to defer the
gain that was occasioned by the damage and which it had
reinvested in like property. Petitioner had not planned to
harvest the damaged trees. Identical to the taxpayer’s situation
in the 1980 ruling, petitioner’s trees were damaged by forces
without its control, and petitioner was compelled to salvage its
damaged trees prior to the intended date for harvest, sale,
and/or processing into end products. Unlike the taxpayer in C.G.
Willis v. Commissioner, supra, petitioner was forced to salvage
(process or sell) the damaged trees or suffer a total loss.
Respondent’s attempt to distinguish petitioner’s situation
from the ruling does not reconcile with the rationale of the 1980
ruling, the underlying statute, and case law. The taxpayer in
the ruling and petitioner were both forced to salvage the damaged
trees or suffer the imminent and total loss of the damaged trees.
The taxpayer in the ruling and petitioner were prematurely forced
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