- 42 -                                         
             held the subject club memberships.  E.g., Byram v. United                
             States, 705 F.2d 1418, 1423 (5th Cir. 1983); United States               
             v. Winthrop, 417 F.2d 905, 910 (5th Cir. 1969); United                   
             States v. Rosebrook, 318 F.2d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1963);                  
             Bauschard v. Commissioner, 31 T.C. 910, 915 (1959), affd.                
             279 F.2d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1960).                                       
                  In deciding whether property is held primarily for                  
             sale to customers in the ordinary course of a taxpayer's                 
             business, this and other courts look to various factors                  
             such as:                                                                 
                  (1)the nature and purpose of the acquisition                        
                  of the property and the duration of owner-                          
                  ship;(2)the extent and nature of the taxpayer's                     
                  efforts to sell the property;(3)the number,                         
                  extent, continuity and substantiality of the                        
                  sales;(4)the extent of subdividing, developing,                     
                  and advertising to increase sales;(5)the use of                     
                  a business office for the sale of the property;                     
                  (6)the character and degree of supervision or                       
                  control exercised by the taxpayer over any                          
                  representative selling the property; and(7)the                      
                  time and effort the taxpayer habitually devoted                     
                  to the sales.                                                       
             United States v. Winthrop, supra at 910 (quoting Smith v.                
             Dunn, 244 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1955)); see also Biedenharn                 
             Realty Co. v. United States, 526 F.2d 409, 415 n.22 (5th                 
             Cir. 1976); Buono v. Commissioner, supra at 199.                         
                  As we view the facts of these cases, petitioner and                 
             Mr. Dixon undertook the development of the Moonlight Bay                 
Page:  Previous   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011