- 58 -
on June 30, 1986, or possibly on July 14, 1986, constituted an
abandonment by the partnership of the project assets.32 We
disagree.
The existence or timing of an abandonment is “inherently a
factual matter that requires a practical examination of all the
circumstances”. L&C Springs Associates v. Commissioner, supra at
870. The courts have applied different standards for analyzing
the timing of abandonment losses and the timing of abandonment
gains. Generally, a determination of an abandonment loss
requires an intention on the owner’s part to abandon the asset,
along with an “affirmative act” of abandonment. A.J. Indus.,
Inc. v. United States, 503 F.2d 660, 670 (9th Cir. 1974); see L&C
Springs Associates v. Commissioner, supra; Middleton v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C. 310, 322, affd. per curiam 693 F.2d 124
(11th Cir. 1982). On the other hand, where, as in the instant
case, abandonment of an asset would result in income recognition
32 As previously noted, although respondent occasionally
posits July 14, 1986, as an alternative date of abandonment,
respondent’s arguments do not otherwise direct our attention to
any circumstances or analysis supporting that date. Respondent
has been inconstant in his position as to whether he believes the
partnership abandoned the project before June 30, 1986, or on
that date. In a Jan. 5, 2005, hearing on petitioner’s motion for
summary judgment, respondent’s counsel advised the Court that
respondent’s position “is that there was no abandonment or other
disposition of the property until June 30” (emphasis added).
Inconsistently, on brief respondent contends that the partnership
abandoned the project “by June 30, 1986” (emphasis added).
Respondent’s arguments on brief, focusing largely on pre-June 30,
1986, events, suggest that this evolution of respondent’s choice
of prepositions is purposeful.
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011