- 46 -
Improvements
We note that petitioner did not make any improvements on the
Exchange Property. However, the fact that the property was not
developed when it was sold does not, standing alone, require a
conclusion that it was held for investment. See Kesicki v.
Commissioner, 34 T.C. 675, 679 (1960).
Activity: Map Process
Petitioner contends that there were little or no activity in
regard to the Exchange Property. See Olivieri v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1966-177. We disagree. In regard to the Exchange
Property, petitioner resubmitted the tentative map. The
tentative map was approved on June 9, 1986.21 Afterwards,
petitioner proceeded to obtain a final map regarding the Exchange
Property. Between May 6, 1986 and May 16, 1989, petitioner
worked with Mr. Dotson, the engineer for city, to revise the
conditions of approval, including the cost estimate. During this
period, Dotson revised the conditions. These discussions led to
petitioner being able to lock-in the lower city development fees
for the Exchange Property.
As of March 18, 1988, the final map on the Exchange Property
was approved and ready to be recorded once petitioner obtained
the required signatures. As of the date of the exchange, the
21 A tentative map shows the design and improvement of a
proposed subdivision and the existing conditions, but it cannot
be recorded. Cal. Govt. Code secs. 66424.5(a), 66429 (West
1997).
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011