Court Opinion

ID: 9478612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:53:14.119855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:31.198487
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, based on the totality of the circumstances, the taxpayer did not have a recognizable gain until two events occurred: (1) his children actually assumed the mortgage, and (2) the Kansas City Life Insurance Company agreed to release the taxpayer from his obligation on the note. Neither event occurred during taxable year 1979. Until these two events happened, any gain was fictional at best.
I also believe that the tax court erred in valuing the property at issue at only $162,-000. The taxpayer testified at length as to the value of the property, and there is no substantial evidence in the record to contradict his testimony. We only have the theory expounded by the IRS. Moreover, no reason is shown in the record for rejecting the taxpayer’s testimony as less than credible.