- 38 -
evident from the fact that he had no other purpose for
holding the club memberships. They claim that he did not
hold the club memberships for personal or family use, for
rental income, or for investment. Petitioners also assert
that Mr. Lemons was engaged in the trade or business of
selling memberships since the joint venture was engaged in
developing the Moonlight Beach property and petitioner and
Mr. Dixon "were simply carrying out their original
development plan when they 'subpurchased' the (18) unsold
memberships in their own names." Petitioners cite cases
involving the distinction between a "dealer" and an
"investor" in real property and argue that the factors used
in those cases show that petitioner's activities "rise to
the level of trade or business." Finally, they contend
that the factors identified in the regulations promulgated
under section 183 also show that petitioner was engaged in
a trade or business.
Petitioners' second argument is that they are entitled
to a deduction because the subject loss was incurred in a
transaction entered into for profit and is fully deductible
under section 165(c)(2). Petitioners cite Meyer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1975-349, affd. 547 F.2d 943 (5th
Cir. 1977), and other cases and argue that the
characterization of the loss should be based on the "origin
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011