9
conclusion that petitioner held the property for sale where other
factors indicate the property was held for investment. Bramblett
v. Commissioner, 960 F.2d 526, 531 (5th Cir. 1992), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1990-296. Petitioner's other sale resulted in a loss of
approximately $5,800.
Petitioner made virtually no showing as to the extent of his
efforts to sell the properties, apart from his testimony that
petitioners listed the Eden Prairie property for sale with the
top real estate agent in Minnesota in 1990. He did not testify
or offer any evidence as to the nature of his efforts to sell any
of the other properties or the amount of time he committed to
this activity.
To support their position, petitioners rely on petitioner's
activities in repairing and improving the properties to make them
saleable. A taxpayer may be engaged in the business of a real
estate dealer when gains on property are generated by the actions
and activities of the taxpayer, such as extensive improvements to
the property. See Bynum v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 295 (1966).
Petitioner testified that he devoted considerable time and funds
to renovating the properties. However, petitioner offered no
corroborating evidence of the expenditures made to improve the
properties. The only evidence in the record indicates that
petitioner's efforts did not, in fact, generate profits.
Petitioners sold the Eden Prairie property at a loss, and, while
the Pillsbury property was sold at a gain, that gain resulted in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011