- 49 -
recorded. Mr. Baker admitted at trial petitioner wanted to sell
the Exchange Property to get its money back. While petitioner
categorizes this as a vague intent, we find that petitioner
expended substantial time, energy, and money in its efforts to
develop the Exchange Property. Whether petitioner was going to
get its money back by subdividing and developing the property or
by selling the raw land, it indicates an intent to liquidate the
property. See Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1045 (9th
Cir. 1985), affg. 81 T.C. 782 (1983).
Extent of Marketing the Exchange Property
Petitioner points out that it received an unsolicited offer
to purchase the Exchange Property through a broker. Prior to
receiving the unsolicited offer for the purchase of the Exchange
Property, petitioner did not list the property with a broker for
sale, did not advertise it for sale in any way, and engaged in no
other marketing efforts relating to the Exchange Property.
At the same time, in connection with the 14 lots, petitioner
did not actively market the development; instead, petitioner used
unrelated realtors.
Paullus v. Commissioner
In attempting to demonstrate its investment intent,
petitioner focuses on the fact that it never recorded the final
map of (i.e., never subdivided) the Exchange Property.
Petitioner cites Paullus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-419.
In Paullus, the Court found that the taxpayer held the property
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