Christine C. Deignan - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               improvements made to the property; (5) the proximity of                
               sale to purchase; and (6) the purpose for which the                    
               property was held during the taxable years.  * * *                     
          Howell v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 546, 554 (1972).  Additional                
          factors include the amounts of income received from the                     
          taxpayer's regular business as contrasted with the amounts                  
          received from the property as well as the regularity and                    
          consistency of the taxpayer's activity regarding the property.              
          Adam v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 996, 999 (1973).  These factors are           
          considered together, Buono v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 187, 199                
          (1980), but no single one is dispositive.  Oace v. Commissioner,            
          39 T.C. 743, 747 (1963); Vidican v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1969-207.  Whether the taxpayer holds the property as a capital             
          asset or an ordinary one is a question of fact.  Daugherty v.               
          Commissioner, 78 T.C. 623, 628 (1982); Sottong v. Commissioner,             
          T.C. Memo. 1966-268.                                                        
               Petitioner asserts that she sold the house to customers in             
          the ordinary course of business.  A taxpayer may have more than             
          one trade or business.  Cottle v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 467, 489            
          (1987).  However, petitioner has the burden of establishing that            
          she was engaged in a business.  Rule 142(a).  Petitioner has not            
          met this burden.                                                            
               First, petitioner originally acquired the property for                 
          personal reasons, to build a home with her husband.  Second, her            
          sale of the property was a one time event.  Petitioner did not              
          present any evidence that she even considered buying other                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011