-25-
receipt of the notice of deficiency that they began to hold
themselves out as the owners of the property. Therefore, we hold
that petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proving that
the Family Partnership was not fully implemented and should be
disregarded.
Petitioners argue alternatively that the Family Partnership
distributed the property to them in 1992. In support of their
position, petitioners introduced into evidence a document
purporting to assign the property to petitioners as tenants by
the entirety. The document is not a deed. The purported
transfer was not recorded, and thus record title to the South
Point Road lot remained with the Family Partnership until its
sale in 2001. The property was never titled in petitioners’
names. Therefore, property tax bills always listed the owner of
the property as the Family Partnership. Similarly, the listing
agreement and the form HUD-1 settlement sheet listed the owner as
the Family Partnership, not petitioners.
Petitioners argue that the property was transferred to
themselves to facilitate a refinancing of the South Point Road
lot and the Berlin house because the lender required the property
be held by petitioners individually. However, the record
indicates that after petitioners used the proceeds of the
refinancing to pay off the respective purchase loans, there was
no longer a mortgage on the South Point Road lot; the only
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008