- 37 -
Other Evidence--Petitioner's Actions
While petitioner's intent at the time of the exchange is
critical, it primarily relies on Mr. Baker's statement to
establish its intent, without examining the actions of petitioner
as a corporation. See Raymond v. United States, 511 F.2d 185,
190 (6th Cir. 1975).
Ordinary Business
Several courts have considered whether a taxpayer's real
estate operations were limited to the properties in question or
were engaged in as part of a general real estate business. Eline
Realty Co. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. at 5 (discussing this point
in the context of a predecessor of section 1221); Maddux Constr.
Co. v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. at 1284. We recognize that a
taxpayer in the real estate business may also acquire and hold
real property for investment purposes. Maddux Constr. Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1286 (dealing with section 1221). The
taxpayer has the burden of proving that when dealing with the
property it was wearing the hat of an investor rather than that
of a dealer. Pritchett v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 149, 164 (1974).
In determining this, we accord greater weight to the objective
facts than to petitioner's statements regarding investment
intent.
Further, "a subsequent sale is not conclusive on the
question of the primary purpose in acquiring and holding the real
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011