Loren F. Paullus and Donna Paullus - Page 25

                                       - 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               
               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              
               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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011