Printer Friendly

Divorced man can't defer gain on sale of former residence.

While married, Perry lived with his wife and daughter in a house in city A. In June 1984, he moved out but continued to pay the mortgage and other household expenses. Later that year, Perry moved to city B to live with a woman he ultimately married in 1987. Perry and his wife got divorced in December 1985. Part of the divorce agreement was that Perry's former wife and their daughter would continue to live in the house until December 1987, when it would be sold and the proceeds split. The house was sold in March 1988, and the proceeds were divided according to the divorce agreement.

On his 1988 tax return, Perry reported the sale of the house in city A but not any gain from the sale. He claimed the sale came under Internal Revenue Code section 1034, which allows a taxpayer to roll over the gain from the sale of a home if(1) it is his or her principal residence, (2) the taxpayer purchases a new residence within two years--before or after-the date the old residence is sold and (3) the cost of the new residence is equal to or greater than the adjusted sales price of the old residence. A taxpayer has to recognize gain only to the extent the cost of the new residence is less than the adjusted sales price of the old residence.

The IRS refused to allow the deferral, claiming the house had ceased to be Perry's principal residence when he moved out in June 1984. The IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties on his gain.

Result: For the IRS. Both the Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the IRS decision. The Ninth Circuit found that Perry did not meet the condition that the home sold be his principal residence. To be a principal residence, a taxpayer has to use the premises as his or her actual home and must intend to stay there. In this case, Perry had long since ceased living in the house, had no intention of returning, had given exclusive use to his former wife and had made his "home" elsewhere since 1984. The court found the taxpayer's financial maintenance of the house alone did not make it his principal residence. In addition, one year after the sale of the house Perry and his second wife received nonrecognition treatment for the gain on the sale of their house in city B, where Perry had been residing since 1984. The court said that for purposes of the tax code, a person can have only "one" principal residence.

* Perry v. Commissioner (9th Cir. 7/31/96, aff'g TC 1994-247).
COPYRIGHT 1997 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1997, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Albanese, Maria Luzarraga
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:May 1, 1997
Words:444
Previous Article:Witnesses want simpler code and better taxpayer rights.
Next Article:Taxpayers can use direct and circumstantial evidence to show timely filing.
Topics:


Related Articles
Home is where the heart is.
Arnes defines an "on behalf of" redemption under sec. 1041.
Spousal sales may defer recognition of gain.
Selling a house after divorce.
The sale of a principal residence.
Maximizing gain exclusion/deferral when selling a principal residence due to death, divorce or marriage.
Once-in-a-lifetime exclusion and rollover provisions on gain from sale of home replaced by new exclusion rules.
Interest expense incurred in property settlement is deductible.
New rules affecting home sales and purchases.
Reduced exclusion possible in home sale: safe harbors for taxpayers not meeting the use/occupancy rules.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters