- 7 -
controlling. Buono v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 187, 199 (1980).
The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether, within the
meaning of section 1221(1), petitioner conducted a trade or
business and whether petitioner held the Property primarily for
sale to customers in the ordinary course of this trade or
business. Cappuccilli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-347,
affd. 668 F.2d 138 (2d Cir. 1981). Petitioner bears the burden
of proof. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933).
Following our review of the record, and after our
consideration of all the relevant facts, we conclude that
petitioner held the Property as a capital asset. We find that
petitioner was merely an investor in the Property, rather than a
developer of it. He provided an infusion of capital for
Mr. Grant's development of the Property, and petitioner did not
actively participate in the Property's development. Although
petitioner sold the Property himself, this was a one-time event
in which petitioner took a relatively passive role by retaining a
real estate agent to sell it for him. Moreover, petitioner sold
the Property himself only because Mr. Grant, after completing
construction of a residence on the Property, relinquished his
interest to petitioner in satisfaction of the money Mr. Grant
owed to petitioner. Petitioner made no meaningful improvements
to the Property, did not personally advertise the Property for
sale, and sold it at a loss. Petitioner's activity regarding the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011