- 20 -
v. United States, 215 F.3d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000); Read v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 14, 36-37 (2000). Therefore, petitioner’s
sale of her interest in the Happy Valley property was not made on
behalf of Mr. Walker. Accordingly, section 1.1041-1T(c), Q&A-9,
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 49 Fed. Reg. 34453 (Aug. 31, 1984),
is not applicable to this case.
C. Petitioner’s Argument That She Filed Her 1997 and 1998
Returns in Accordance With an Agreement That She Had With
Mr. Walker
Petitioner relies on Friscone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-193, for her argument that she filed her 1997 and 1998
returns in accordance with an agreement that she had with
Mr. Walker that he would report one-half of the gain resulting
from the sale of petitioner’s undivided 50-percent interest in
the Happy Valley property. The principal issue in Friscone was
whether, following an agreement between a husband and wife that
was incorporated in a divorce decree, the gain on the subsequent
sale of certain stock owned by the husband was to be attributed
to him in its entirety or only in the portion awarded to him by
the divorce decree. In holding that only the gain on the portion
awarded to the husband by the divorce decree was to be attributed
to him, we considered the manner in which the divorce decree
divided the proceeds of the sale of the stock between the husband
and wife. Even though title to the stock remained with the
husband up to the time of its sale under the terms of the divorce
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011