- 17 -
for a below-market rental amount. This fact is an indication
that petitioner held the property for personal use, not for the
production of income. Bolaris v. Commissioner, 776 F.2d 1428
(9th Cir. 1985) (a rental for less than fair market value will
most likely not qualify as property being held for the production
of income), affg. in part and revg. in part 81 T.C. 840 (1983);
Walet v. Commissioner, 31 T.C. 461 (1958) (property held for
personal use of taxpayer's former wife and child not held for
production of income), affd. per curiam 272 F.2d 694 (5th Cir.
1959); Hirschel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-189, affd.
without published opinion 685 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1982).
Furthermore, immediately after her brother informed her of his
intention to move, petitioner listed the property for sale,
rather than offering it for rent at its fair market value.
Placing the property on the market for immediate sale, at or
immediately after its abandonment for personal use, is ordinarily
strong evidence that a taxpayer is not holding the property for
postconversion appreciation in value. Newcombe v. Commissioner,
54 T.C. 1298, 1302 (1970).
Petitioner, who has the burden of proof, has not
established that she held the property for profit or the
production of income. It clearly appears on this record that
petitioner held the property primarily for personal use, not for
profit from rentals nor for appreciation in value. Considering
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011