- 27 -
in question during the early 1970's and had it attributed to the
correct artist around the early 1980's, but did not sell it until
January 1989; (6) petitioner did not use the proceeds from the
sale of the drawing in question to purchase other drawings for
purposes of attribution and sale; and (7) petitioner engaged in a
psychology practice during all relevant periods, the income from
which provided his support during those periods.
To support his position under section 1221(1), petitioner
contends that (1) during the 1970's, his research on the drawings
that he had acquired and his attempts to attribute them to the
correct artists were sporadic; (2) during 1979 or 1980, he
changed his intention with respect to certain drawings that he
had acquired during the 1970's, including the drawing in ques-
tion, and decided to have those drawings attributed to the
correct artists and sold at a profit; (3) during the 1980's, his
research on those drawings and his attempts to enlist the inter-
est of curators for purposes of attributing those drawings to the
correct artists became systematic; (4) during 1989, after the
18(...continued)
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the taxpayer held
certain condemned real estate primarily for sale to customers in
the ordinary course of its trade or business. Id. at 651-656.
In contrast to the instant case, the record in the Stockton
Harbor Indus. Co. case established, inter alia, that (1) the
taxpayer was a corporation organized for the purpose of dealing
in real estate; (2) it acquired the real estate in question for
the purpose of developing it as an industrial site; (3) it
advertised and attempted to sell that real estate; and (4) it
sold various parcels of that real estate prior to its condemna-
tion. Id. at 652-655.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011