- 9 -
loss. This Court held that the taxpayers had engaged in a
transaction for profit and were entitled to the loss deduction
under section 165(c)(2). Id. Unlike Bassett, we cannot find on
the record in this case that the "only reason for completing the
structure was in furtherance of his [the husband's] intention to
realize a profit." Id.
It is our judgment in this case that at most petitioner
completed construction and promptly undertook to sell the
property only to salvage what she could out of an unfortunate
situation. Further, unlike Bassett, at the time of completion
petitioner had no modifications made in the plans for the house,
which had been designed to meet the personal needs or wishes of
petitioner and her husband and which rendered the property less
attractive for purposes of sale and less likely to generate a
favorable sales price. Although there is some similarity between
this case and Bassett, there are obvious factual differences
between them, and in our judgment those differences call for
treating this case as lying on the other side of the line,
particularly since Bassett itself was at best a close case.3
Moreover, the loss allowed as a deduction in Bassett was allowed
under section 165(c)(2), which is concerned with capital losses
and for that reason alone would be of no help to petitioner.
3 As to cases in general falling on the opposite side of the
line, see Borchers v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 82, 93-94 (1990),
affd. 943 F.2d 22 (8th Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011