- 28 -
sale of the drawing in question, he abandoned his art activities
because (a) there was a serious crash in the art market as a
result of an economic recession during that year and (b) he was
having difficulty in enlisting the interest of curators for
purposes of attributing certain of his drawings to the correct
artists.19 At trial, petitioner presented only his own testimony
to support the foregoing allegations. We are unwilling to rely
on that testimony to establish those contentions.20 For example,
it strains credulity that, as soon as petitioner sold in January
1989 the drawing in question, which was the only drawing, art-
work, or collectible that the record shows he ever sold, the art
market coincidentally and suddenly crashed, thereby materially
19 Petitioner further contends that his position that the
drawing in question is property described in sec. 1221(1) is
supported by the following facts: Certain experts checked the
physical stability of the drawing in question; it was determined
that Anselmi had not sketched that drawing; the curator of
Italian drawings attributed that drawing to Parmagianino; and the
drawing in question received international exposure through art
exhibits, newspapers, and art catalogues. We are not persuaded
by the foregoing facts on which petitioner relies and the other
facts that we have found relating to the sale of the drawing in
question that that drawing is property described in sec. 1221(1),
and not a capital asset.
20 We note that even if we had found certain of those conten-
tions as facts, they would not necessarily persuade us that the
drawing in question was property described in sec. 1221(1). For
example, assuming arguendo that, during 1979 or 1980, petitioner
had changed his intention with respect to certain drawings that
he had acquired during the 1970's, including the drawing in
question, and decided to have those drawings attributed to the
correct artists and sold at a profit, that would not necessarily
indicate that he held those drawings primarily for sale to
customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business, and
not for investment. See Howell v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 546, 555
(1972).
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