Babnew v. Commissioner

LESTER H. BABNEW and ALMA E. BABNEW, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Babnew v. Commissioner

Docket No. 17318-80.

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo 1983-213; 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 575; 45 T.C.M. 1356; T.C.M. (RIA) 83213;

April 19, 1983.

---

Lester H. Babnew, pro se.

Terence D. Woolston, for the respondent.

---

FAY

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FAY, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,254 in petitioners' 1977 Federal">*576 income tax. The only issue is whether petitioners must recapture a new principal residence tax credit claimed as the result of their purchase of a home in 1975.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts are stipulated and found accordingly.

Petitioners, Lester H. Babnew and Alma E. Babnew, resided in Nogales, Ariz., at the time they filed their petition herein.

On April 4, 1975, petitioners purchased a "new" home in Nogales, Ariz., which qualified for a new residence credit of $1,254 under section 44(a). ^{1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 575">*577 credit be recaptured if the taxpayer disposes of the property within 36 months of the date it was acquired. However, no recapture is required if the disposition is pursuant to an involuntary conversion within the meaning of section 1033(a). Sec. 44(d)(3)(B). 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 575">*578 We are certainly aware of and sensitive to petitioners' position. However, the statute is clear, and we are in no position to offer relief. Accordingly, petitioners must recapture in 1977 the $1,254 new residence credit they claimed in 1975.}

Decision will be entered for respondent.

---

Footnotes

• 1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the taxable year in issue.↩

• 2. There is no question petitioners' replacement home was a "used" home. Thus, petitioners cannot avoid recapture under sec. 44(d)(2) which provides an exception for a taxpayer who purchases a qualifying new principal residence within 18 months of the date he acquired the original new principal residence.↩

• 3. See Lonergan v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1982-346↩, where a change of employment did not constitute such an involuntary conversion.