SECTION 6. DRAFTING

INFORMATION

The principal author of this revenue procedure is J. Peter Baumgarten of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). For further

Both were used by the taxpayers only for personal purposes. The taxpayers claimed that the exchange of the homes was a like-kind exchange under § 1031 because the properties were expected to appreciate in value and thus were held for investment. The Tax Court held, however, that the properties were held for personal use and that the “mere hope or expectation that property may be sold at a gain cannot establish an investment intent if the taxpayer uses the property as a residence.”

.05 In Starker v. United States, 602 F.2d 1341, 1350 (9 ^th Cir. 1979), the Ninth Circuit held that a personal residence of a taxpayer was not eligible for exchange under § 1031, explaining that “[it] has long been the rule that use of property solely as a personal residence is antithetical to its being held for investment.”

.06 The Service recognizes that many taxpayers hold dwelling units primarily for the production of current rental income, but also use the properties occasionally for personal purposes. In the interest of sound tax administration, this revenue procedure provides taxpayers with a safe harbor under which a dwelling unit will qualify as property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment under § 1031 even though a taxpayer occasionally uses the dwelling unit for personal purposes.