Christine C. Deignan - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          properties.  Third, petitioner took a relatively passive role in            
          disposing of the property.  She presented no evidence that she              
          made any independent efforts to sell the property.  She merely              
          listed the property with realtors upon its completion, as she               
          would have been required to do by court order prior to purchasing           
          her divorced husband's interest in the property.                            
               Fourth, petitioner did not make any improvements to the                
          property.  In the uniform residential appraisal report filed with           
          the divorce decree, the appraiser says of the property, "With               
          shutters and landscaping, it should have adequate if less than              
          typical appeal.  The interior is unusual and creates some                   
               The appraiser also states that "there are significant                  
          adjustments for design/appeal, and functional utility.  In my               
          opinion subject will be penalized."  Despite these opinions and             
          predictions, petitioner did not have any architectural                      
          modifications made in the course of completion of the house to              
          increase the salability of the property.                                    
               Fifth, there is no evidence that petitioner held the                   
          property for a business purpose.  The burden rests on petitioner            
          to show that the purpose for which she held the property changed            
          to a business one.  Heiner v. Tindle, 276 U.S. 582 (1928);                  
          Paffrath v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1961-71.  Other than a bald            
          assertion by petitioner that the court order transformed                    
          petitioner's purpose into a business one, petitioner has                    

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011