Thomas B. Drummond - Page 26

                                       - 26 -                                         
          factors have varying degrees of relevancy depending on the facts            
          of a particular case, and all factors may not be relevant in a              
          particular case.  S & H, Inc. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 234, 243-            
          244 (1982).  Objective factors carry more weight than the tax-              
          payer's subjective statement of his or her intent.  Guardian                
          Indus. Corp. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 308, 316 (1991), affd.                
          without published opinion 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 1994).                      
               Based on our review of the entire record before us, and in             
          particular the following facts, we find that petitioner has                 
          failed to establish that he held the drawing in question primar-            
          ily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or            
          business within the meaning of section 1221(1):  (1) When peti-             
          tioner acquired the drawing in question during the early 1970's,            
          he did not intend to sell it; (2) petitioner conducted research             
          throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's on the drawings that he           
          had acquired during the 1970's; (3) during the 1970's, petitioner           
          did not attempt to sell any of the drawings that he had acquired            
          during those years; (4) petitioner did not sell any artwork or              
          collectible, other than the drawing in question, during the                 
          period 1985 through 1994;18 (5) petitioner purchased the drawing            


          18  Petitioner relies on Stockton Harbor Indus. Co. v. Commis-              
          sioner, 216 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1954), to support his contention             
          that, notwithstanding the absence of any sales of drawings by               
          petitioner other than the drawing in question, he held the                  
          drawing in question primarily for sale to customers in the                  
          ordinary course of his trade or business.  We find that case to             
          be distinguishable and petitioner's reliance on it to be mis-               
          placed.  In the Stockton Harbor Indus. Co. case, the Court of               
                                                             (continued...)           



Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011