- 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
obsolescence."
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