Christine C. Deignan - Page 9

                                        - 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