- 16 -
The legal principles and factors stated in those cases apply to
whether a taxpayer had a trade or business of selling real
estate. The factual differences between this case and those
cases are immaterial.
Petitioners contend that the fact that they had only a few
parcels of real estate does not show that they were not trying to
sell them. We agree. We did not consider the number of parcels
of real estate that petitioners owned in deciding whether they
had a trade or business of selling real estate.
Petitioners point out that petitioner's primary occupation
was appraising, managing, developing, and selling real estate.
That does not establish that he had a trade or business of
selling real estate.
3. Conclusion
We conclude that petitioner did not have a trade or business
of selling real estate in 1990 or 1991.2 The interest
petitioners paid to Mary McCullen, First American Savings Bank,
and South Carolina National Bank is investment interest which
petitioners may deduct under section 163(h)(2)(B) for 1990 and
1991 to the extent of their investment income.
2 We need not decide respondent's alternate contention that
petitioners may not deduct the interest at issue because
petitioner commingled his real estate and farm accounts.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011