Revenue Ruling 90-34
Internal Revenue Service
1990-1 C.B. 154 (1990)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Taxpayer X held Blackacre for productive use in trade or business. Blackacre was unencumbered real property with a fair market value of $1 million. In May 1989, X and another party, Y, entered into a contract under which X would transfer Blackacre to Y, and Y would transfer property of a like kind with the same fair market value to X. The contract provided that X would identify the like-kind property within 45 days of X’s transfer of Blackacre to Y, and Y would then purchase and transfer the identified property to X before the earlier of (1) 180 days from X’s transfer of Blackacre or (2) the due date of X’s federal income-tax return for the taxable year in which the transfer of Blackacre occurred. On May 23, 1989, X transferred Blackacre to Y pursuant to the contract. A few days later, X identified Whiteacre as the like-kind property X wanted to receive in the exchange. Whiteacre was owned by Z and was unencumbered real property with a fair market value of $1 million. In July 1989, Y purchased Whiteacre from Z and directed Z to transfer legal title to Whiteacre directly to X. Under § 1031(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, certain exchanges of like-kind property qualify for nonrecognition of gain or loss. The Internal Revenue Service issued a revenue ruling that discussed whether the exchange of Blackacre for Whiteacre qualified for nonrecognition as to X, even though Y never held legal title to Whiteacre.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 964,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,006 law school casebooks.

