Godlewski v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Pursuant to a property settlement agreement, petitioner paid $ 18,000 to his ex-spouse and she transferred their former residence to him. Soon afterward, petitioner sold the house to a third party. Held, sec. 1041, I.R.C. 1954, as added by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, applies to these facts. Held, further, petitioner cannot increase the basis of the house by the $ 18,000 he paid his former spouse for purposes of computing gain realized on the subsequent sale.
1Opinion of the Court
STERRETT, Chief Judge:
This case was assigned to and heard by Special Trial Judge Joan Seitz Pate pursuant to the provisions of section 7456 of the Code and Rules 180 and 181.1 The Court agrees with and adopts the Special Trial Judge’s opinion which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
PATE, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,989 in petitioner’s 1984 Federal income tax. After concessions by both parties,2 we need only determine the amount of gain realized by petitioner on the sale of a house transferred to him incident to his divorce.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Mi…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Zinniel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Nissho Iwai Am. Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Concord Consumers Hous. Coop. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Peter E. Blum and Robert S. Prather, Jr. v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Berger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1996
- Schmidt Baking Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1996
- Craven v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1999
- Barnette v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1992
- Barnette v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.