- 33 -
establishing, let alone by strong proof, that, at the time of the
December 2, 1999 transaction, that transaction was not a sale for
tax purposes.
We address next petitioners’ argument that, because of
events occurring in years after the December 2, 1999 transaction,
that transaction became a sale of lot 5 in 1999, but for $200,000
and not for $318,000 as reflected in the December 2, 1999 settle-
ment statement. As discussed above, the determination of whether
a purported sale is a sale for tax purposes must be made as of
the date of the purported sale.29 See Derr v. Commissioner, 77
T.C. at 723-724. Any events occurring in years after the Decem-
ber 2, 1999 transaction could not have resulted in a sale in 1999
of lot 5 by petitioners.30 See id. We reject petitioners’ argu-
ment that, because of events occurring in years after the Decem-
ber 2, 1999 transaction, that transaction became a sale of lot 5
in 1999, but for $200,000 and not for $318,000 as reflected in
the December 2, 1999 settlement statement.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we sustain respondent’s determination in the notice that the
December 2, 1999 transaction constitutes a sale of lot 5 by
petitioners for $318,000.
In the event the Court were to sustain, as the Court has,
29See supra note 26.
30See supra note 26.
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007