“The Tax Court erred in Crandall v. Commissioner. The “substance-over-form” doctrine, not the constructive receipt principle,...

“The Tax Court erred in Crandall v. Commissioner. The “substance-over-form” doctrine, not the constructive receipt principle, should have controlled. The cash proceeds from the sale of their Arizona property that were placed into escrow ($66,000) in fact were never received by Mr. & Mrs. Crandall, even momentarily. That fact should have resulted in a decision that they correctly reported the sale and follow-on acquisition of the California property as a good § 1031 LKE.”

Discuss.

Solutions

Expert Solution

CRANDALL VS COMMISSIONER CASE:-

Petitioners owned an undeveloped parcel of property in Lake Havasu City, Arizona (Arizona Property).
Petitioners held the property for investment. They desired to own investment property closer to their residence in California.
After Receiving some limited advice concerning a tax-free exchange of properties, petitioners took step to sell the Arizona property and purchase a new property with the intention of executing a tax free exchange.
On 04-Mar-2005 , Petitioners sold the Arizona property for $ 76000.
The Buyer of the property paid petitioners $10,000 & the remaining $66,000 was placed in an escrow account with Capital Title Agency Inc.
At petitioners discretion $ 61743.25 was held in escrow account.Capital Title initially released $ 4256.75 to petitioners.Petitioners basis in Arizona property was $8500.
In furtherance of the purchase, petitioners made payments to Chicago Title Co.& placed in an escrow account as deposit.
The Capital Title & Chicago Title escrow agreements did not reference a like-kind exchange under Sec 1031, nor did they expressly limit petitioners right to receive, pledge, borrow, or otherwise obtain the benefits of the funds.
The General rule regarding recognition of gain or loss on sale or exchange of property is that the entire amount of gain or loss is recognised. But an exception to general rule is found in Sec-1031.
Sec-1031 provides that no gain or loss is recognised when business or investment property is exchanged solely for other business or investment property of like kind.
To avoid being in constructive receipt of money or property, a taxpayer may use a qualified escrow account.
The Arizona Property & California Property are like-kind properties. Issue is whether there was an exchange within the meaning of the statute & the regulations.
The underlying purpose of section 1031 is to permit a taxpayer to defer gain with respect to an "ongoing investment", rather than ridding himself of one investment to obtain another. ( Teruya Bros Ltd. Vs Commissioner).
Although petitioners used the funds in the Capital Title Escrow account to purchase the California Property , the lack of express Limitations in the escrow agreement results in petitioners being treated as having constructively received the proceeds.

Conclusion:- The disposition of Arizona Property was sale and funds deposited in Capital Title Escrow Account represent the receipt of proceeds. Consequently this transaction doesnot qualify for Section 1031 nonrecognition & therefore the petitioners must recognise the gain for year 2005 ( Year Of Sale)

ekkarill92 answered 1 year ago

Next > < Previous

Related Solutions

Read Hornung v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 428 (1967), which involves the constructive receipt doctrine and how...

Read Hornung v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 428 (1967), which involves the constructive receipt doctrine and how it was used to determine the year of inclusion in taxable income. How does the constructive receipt doctrine impact a cash-basis individual’s taxable income? What factors could have resulted in a different determination?

1. Economic substance doctrine,. Purpose of the business doctrine, and Substance over form doctrine are socially...

1. Economic substance doctrine,. Purpose of the business doctrine, and Substance over form doctrine are socially beneficial?

Compare and contrast the constructive receipt doctrine and the assignment of income doctrine. In what situations...

Compare and contrast the constructive receipt doctrine and the assignment of income doctrine. In what situations do these doctrines apply? What tax planning strategies does each doctrine limit?

Compare and contrast the constructive receipt doctrine and the assignment of income doctrine. In what situations...

Compare and contrast the constructive receipt doctrine and the assignment of income doctrine. In what situations do these doctrines apply?

"Tax Implications" Your client, Jack, has asked about the differences between the constructive receipt doctrine and...

"Tax Implications" Your client, Jack, has asked about the differences between the constructive receipt doctrine and the claim of right doctrine. Explain what each doctrine is by providing an example to help Jack understand the differences. Claim of right doctrine - judicial doctrine that states that income has been realized if a taxpayer receives income and there are no restrictions on the taxpayer's use of the income (for example, the taxpayer does not have an obligation to repay the amount)....

Case: In Yaryan v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-129, the Tax Court allowed only a nonbusiness bad...

Case: In Yaryan v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-129, the Tax Court allowed only a nonbusiness bad debt for losses incurred in a real estate joint venture as the taxpayer’s activities did not constitute a business (this case disfavors those hoping on a broad definition of business for the Section 199A deduction). Summary should be include the following five sections: 1>. case citation.2.> facts.3.>issues.4>holding and 5>.rationale.

In Trites v Renin Corp. the court held that there is no constructive dismissal where a...

In Trites v Renin Corp. the court held that there is no constructive dismissal where a temporary layoff has been rolled out in accordance with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act. Subsequent cases in Ontario have a confirmed this principle b confirmed this principle but only as long as the employer acted reasonably and in good faith in placing the employee on temporary layoff c overturned this principle by findng that a temporary layoff may constitute constructive dismissal even where the employer...

brief the following in IRAC format, Commissioner v. Kowalski US Supreme court [434 US 77; 1977]

Discuss the implications of the tax case Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner: who/what affected &...

Discuss the implications of the tax case Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner: who/what affected & how relevant today/any cases that used this case in their decision?

3rd Tax Case: Burton v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCAFC 141. In providing your analysis, the...

3rd Tax Case: Burton v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCAFC 141. In providing your analysis, the following 5 points must be addressed: 1st The arguments and Facts of the case. 2nd What the taxpayer said. 3rd What the main issue is. 4th What the Commissioner’s argument was. 5th What the Judges said. PLEASE I NEED THIS ANSWER WITHIN AN HOUR

Subjects