- 31 -
ordinary course of Ridgemark’s business. Paullus’ daughter also
had names of potential purchasers of lots in unit 10. There was
some connection between the unit 10 property and Ridgemark’s
sales office.
Additionally, Ridgemark concedes that before the sale of the
unit 10 property to Shen, it was taking steps to develop and sell
the property in the process of liquidating its holdings.
Respondent argues that this made Ridgemark a dealer in real
property when it engaged in preparations to sell the unit 10
property prior to its final sale to Shen. Ridgemark contends
that it should not be deprived of its investor status simply
because it prepared to sell the land to third parties.
Overall, we believe Ridgemark’s position is supported by the
facts. Ridgemark sought to liquidate its assets so it could
maximize the amount of cash and attention it could focus on the
proposed Paicines golf and resort facility. It was contemplated
that, if the transaction with Shen was not consummated, Ridgemark
would follow the same pattern it had followed in the past. In
other words, Ridgemark would sell the unit 10 property to either
Construction or Financial.
3. The Number, Extent, Continuity, and Substantiality of the
Sales
Courts have generally viewed frequent sales that generate
substantial income as tending to show that property was held for
sale rather than investment. Suburban Realty Co. v. United
States, 615 F.2d at 181; Biedenharn Realty Co. v. United States,
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011