Henry v. Commissioner

1982 T.C. Memo. 469, 44 T.C.M. 844, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Henry v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 76 T.C. 455
United States Tax Court·Decided August 11, 1982·No. Docket No. 9358-80.·Unpublished

Opinion

JAMES A. HENRY AND GLORIA J. HENRY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Henry v. Commissioner
Docket No. 9358-80.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1982-469; 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275; 44 T.C.M. (CCH) 844; T.C.M. (RIA) 82469;
August 11, 1982.
James A. Henry and Gloria J. Henry, pro se.
Miles D Friedman, for the respondent.

WILBUR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILBUR, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,802 in petitioners' Federal income taxes for their 1977 taxable year. The sole issue remaining for our decision is whether or not petitioners are entitled to nonrecognition treatment under section 1034 for the gain they realized on the sale of their principal residence.

All of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this*276 reference. The following is a brief summary of the salient facts.

Petitioners James A. Henry and Gloria J. Henry resided in Los Angeles, California at the time they filed their petition in this case. Petitioners are married and filed a joint Federal income tax return for the 1977 taxable year.

Petitioners purchased a home located at 5846 Orlando Avenue, Los Angeles, California, (Orlando Avenue residence) in December 1975. They sold this residence and vacated the premises during the latter part of May 1977. Petitioners' adjusted basis in the Orlando Avenue property at the time of the sale was $55,877, and $71,180 was realized on its sale.

On February 28, 1977, petitioners agreed to purchase a residence located at 6145 Wooster Avenue, Los Angeles, California (Wooster Avenue residence), placing $3,000 into escrow as a deposit on the property. The sale failed to take place as scheduled when the seller refused to sign the closing escrow papers. Petitioners brought suit and in December 1980, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, found in the Henrys' favor, ordering that the sales agreement be specifically enforced. Early in 1981 petitioners received back*277 their $3,000 deposit and the escrow account was closed. Petitioners have never occupied the Wooster Avenue residence.

On September 16, 1978, the Henrys entered into a real estate purchase contract on property located at 7996 West 85th Street, Los Angeles, California (West 85th Street residence), this time placing $1,000 into an escrow account to serve as a deposit. Unfortunately, all did not go well again. It seems the real estate agent signed the escrow agreement on the seller's behalf but without the seller's approval. This matter also culminated in litigation, in which the parties are still involved, and the $1,000 deposit remains in escrow. Petitioners have never occupied the West 85th Street house.

In December of 1978, the Henrys purchased a third house located at 5237 Glasgow Way, Los Angeles, California (Glasgow Way residence) and this time they were finally successful in closing the deal. The purchase price of this, their current residence, was $94,000.

Following the sale of their Orlando Avenue home on May 18, 1977, petitioners signed a one-year lease on a rental apartment into which they moved on May 22, 1977. Petitioners continued to reside in that apartment*278 as tenants until December of 1978, more than 18 months following the sale of the Orlando Avenue residence, when they moved into their current home on Glasgow Way.

Petitioners attached a statement to their 1977 Federal income tax return claiming that the gain realized upon the sale of the Orlando Avenue house was not taxable since a good faith effort had been made to secure a replacement residence and it was hoped that in any event the taxpayers would prevail in their litigation and acquire the Wooster Avenue house before the 18-month period had elapsed. In his statutory notice of deficiency, respondent increased petitioner's taxable income by including as a long-term capital gain the $15,303 profit made upon the sale of the Orlando Avenue property since the sales proceeds had not been reinvested within 18 months following the sale.

Generally, any gain realized on the sale of a personal residence must be recognized by the taxpayer. Section 1001(c). An exception to this rule allowing for nonrecognition of such gain is provided by section 1034 in situations where within an 18-month period before or after the date of sale of the old residence a new property is purchased and used*279 by the taxpayer as his principal residence. 1

Respondent argues that petitioners fail to come within the coverage of section 1034(a) since they neither purchased nor used a replacement residence within the 18-month period. As unfortunate as these circumstances may be, we are bound to concur.

*280 When applying the time limitations the provisions of section 1034(a), the courts, and in particular this Court, have long adopted a very strict approach. In Bayley v. Commissioner,35 T.C. 288 (1960)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Henry v. Commissioner, 1982 T.C. Memo. 469, 44 T.C.M. 844, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 275 (tax 1982).

1982 T.C. Memo. 469 (Henry v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bayley v. Commissioner
35 T.C. 288 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Moore v. Townsend
577 F.2d 424 (Seventh Circuit, 1978)