- 12 -
See also Suburban Realty Co. v. United States, supra at 178.
In answering these questions, the Court of Appeals has
instructed that seven factors should be considered: (1) the
nature and purpose of the acquisition of the property and the
duration of the ownership; (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. Bramblett v. Commissioner, supra at 530-531; Suburban
Realty Co. v. United States, supra at 178; Biedenharn Realty Co.
v. United States, supra at 415; United States v. Winthrop, supra
at 910. The frequency and substantiality of sales is the most
important factor. Bramblett v. Commissioner, supra at 531;
Suburban Realty Co. v. United States, supra at 178; Biedenharn
Realty Co. v. United States, supra at 416. This is so because
A taxpayer who engages in frequent and substantial
sales is almost inevitably engaged in the real estate
business. The frequency and substantiality of sales
are highly probative on the issue of holding purpose
because the presence of frequent sales ordinarily
belies the contention that property is being held "for
investment" rather than "for sale." And the frequency
of sales may often be a key factor in determining the
"ordinariness" question. [Suburban Realty Co. v.
United States, supra at 178.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011