- 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