Margaret Hancock - Page 18

          maintained.  See Kesicki v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 675, 678-679               
          (1960) (the taxpayer held property for investment even though he             
          did not develop it before he sold it).                                       
               Respondent contends that the fact that petitioner had held              
          the lots since 19873 suggests that she held them primarily for               
          investment.  We disagree.  A long holding period suggests                    
          property was held for investment; alone, however, it does not                
          establish that a taxpayer held property for investment.  See                 
          Suburban Realty Co. v. United States, 615 F.2d at 184-185 (the               
          taxpayer's primary purpose for holding real estate up to 33 years            
          was for sale to customers); United States v. Winthrop, supra at              
          907, 909, 911 (the taxpayer held lots up to 25 years for sale to             
          customers); Walsh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-293 (income               
          from the sale of a parcel of 13 acres a taxpayer had held for 13             
          years was ordinary income), affd. without published opinion (8th             
          Cir., July 11, 1995); Tollis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-63             
          (the taxpayer's proceeds from the sale of 9 parcels of real                  
          property over an 8-year period were ordinary income; his decision            
          to retire from the real estate business did not convert the                  
          parcels into capital assets), affd. without published opinion 46             
          F.3d 1132 (6th Cir. 1995); Herndon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.               

               3 Respondent does not contend that we should consider the               
          fact that Hancock Enterprises held the lots from 1977 to 1986 in             
          deciding if petitioner held them for sale to customers.                      

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011