- 25 -
property; (3) the number, extent, continuity and
substantiality of the sales; (4) the extent of
subdividing, developing and advertising to increase
sales; (5) the use of a business office for the sale of
the property; (6) the character and degree of
supervision or control exercised by the taxpayer over
any representative selling the property; and (7) the
time and effort the taxpayer habitually devoted to the
sales. [United States v. Winthrop, supra at 910;
citation omitted.]
See English v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-111; Dunwoody v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-721; see also Parkside, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1096; Estate of Freeland v. Commissioner,
supra at 582; Los Angeles Extension Co. v. United States, supra
at 3.
The frequency and substantiality of sales over an extended
period of time are integral indicia to be considered. The
juxtaposition of the two aforementioned factors, therefore,
“‘will usually conclude the capital gains issue against [the]
taxpayer.’” Suburban Realty Co. v. United States, supra at 176-
178 (quoting Biedenharn Realty Co. v. United States, supra at
418).
At the same time, the courts have held that these factors
are not exclusive. United States v. Winthrop, supra at 911.
Rather, each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts.
Specific factors, or a combination thereof, are not necessarily
controlling. Biedenharn Realty Co. v. United States, supra at
415.
Respondent contends that Ridgemark was a dealer in real
property, and intended to sell the unit 10 property in the
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011