- 7 -
taxed pursuant to section 453B(g).
The Note was not assigned or otherwise transferred to
petitioner. The Corporation was not a party to the Separation
Agreement. There is nothing in the record to show that the
Corporation, as the payee under the terms of the Note,
transferred any ownership rights to petitioner. Petitioner had
no rights to enforce the Note between the Corporation and Dr.
Bowman. Dr. Capps paid petitioner $1,750 monthly with funds he
received.
Respondent argues that the legal effect of the Separation
Agreement was to transfer to petitioner a beneficial ownership
interest in that portion of the Note represented by her receipt
of the $1,750 monthly payment. Respondent relies on Friscone v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-193, which found that beneficial
ownership of stock owned by a former spouse had been transferred
to a spouse by a divorce court award of 55 percent of any and all
proceeds derived from the sale of stock where the stock could not
be transferred directly to the wife due to a buy-sell agreement.
Friscone is distinguishable, because among other things,
there was no divorce court award of a percentage of the Note to
petitioner. Moreover, in Urbauer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-227, this Court distinguished Friscone on its particular
facts and determined that a spouse’s 75-percent interest in the
proceeds from the sale of a house under the terms of a property
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011