- 18 -
take a vacation. It is true that petitioners had other jobs and
that they lost rather than made money on the timeshares, but we
are persuaded that the primary purpose for purchasing the
timeshares was to make a profit.
Merely because petitioner sought to make a profit does not
mean that he was engaged in a trade or business. To be engaged
in a trade or business, there must be continuity and regularity
to the activity. Commissioner v. Groetzinger, supra; see Flint
v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 171 (1911). Respondent
stresses that this case is appealable to the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and that we must, therefore, follow the law of
the Second Circuit. In this regard, respondent relies most
heavily on Grier v. United States, 218 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1955),
affg. per curiam 120 F.Supp. 395 (D. Conn. 1954). Petitioner
relies on three Tax Court cases and one Second Circuit case,
Gilford v. Commissioner, 201 F.2d 735, 736 (2d Cir. 1953), affg.
a Memorandum Opinion of this Court, and attempts to distinguish
Grier from this case.
In Gilford, the taxpayer inherited fractional interests in
several buildings in the 700 block of Third Avenue in New York
City. Two sisters of the taxpayer and another person acquired
similar interests in the same manner as the taxpayer. The
taxpayer and the other owners hired a real estate firm to manage
all the properties as a unit and to account to each owner for his
or her share of income. The Court of Appeals held:
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