Countryside Limited Partnership, CLP Holdings, Inc., Tax Matters Partner - Page 48




                                       - 48 -                                         
          participating partner’s position.  That continuing interest does            
          not alter the controlling fact that, in 2000, Mr. Winn and Mr.              
          Curtis disposed of their partnership interests in Countryside in            
          exchange for nonmarketable securities.27  Moreover, the fact that           
          Stone Ends required an additional infusion of capital in 2001               
          before it could purchase the Manchester property from Countryside           
          at the agreed-upon purchase price negates the idea, suggested by            
          respondent, that there was a “done deal” for the sale of that               
          property to Stone Ends in 2000, even assuming that the parties              
          had reached an informal agreement regarding the terms and                   
          conditions of sale during that year.  See Chisholm v.                       
          Commissioner, supra at 15 (agreement to exercise option “was                
          legally a nullity” since it did not correspond to the terms of              
          the option contract requiring payment, and not merely a promise             
          to pay, for exercise).  Under the circumstances, we do not see              
          how respondent’s position could be enhanced by additional                   
          discovery regarding the existence of an informal agreement for              
          the sale of the Manchester property in 2000.                                

               27  Respondent also attempts to distinguish Hobby v.                   
          Commissioner, 2 T.C. 980 (1943), on the basis of our emphasizing            
          in Hobby that the taxpayer did not cosign or guarantee the loans            
          to his friends that enabled them to purchase his shares, whereas            
          Mr. Winn did guarantee the loans used to purchase the AIG notes.            
          In Hobby, however, the taxpayer received cash for his shares, and           
          it was important to find that that cash came from the purchasers,           
          not the redeeming corporation, a finding that would have been               
          compromised if, in substance, the taxpayer had financed the                 
          purchase of his own shares; i.e., had, in effect, used his                  
          friends as conduits to deliver his shares to the redeeming                  
          corporation in exchange for cash.  In this case, Mr. Winn’s                 
          guaranties helped to finance Countryside’s (and MP’s) acquisition           
          of nonmarketable securities, his receipt of which does not                  
          trigger taxable gain under sec. 731(a)(1).                                  





Page:  Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008