- 9 -
lived in the Pepper Pike residence for many years, raised their
family in it, and moved from it, only because of employment
considerations. At the time they moved from it, their intention
was to sell the property as they were relocating out of the area.
Their initial attempts to sell the property were frustrated,
according to petitioner’s testimony, by circumstances beyond
petitioner’s control; i.e., real estate market conditions at the
time. They received no offers to purchase the Pepper Pike
residence while it was on the market for several months during
1991. Their decision to rent the property was not made with the
primary intention to profit from the rental, see Jasionowski v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 319 (1976), but to alleviate the
financial burden of owning the Pepper Pike residence while at the
same time living and working elsewhere. Apparently, petitioner
and his spouse sold the property at the first opportunity to do
so.
To allow the Schedule E deductions as claimed in this case,
we would have to ignore most of the relevant “facts and
circumstances” and fashion a rule that allows for the conversion
of personal use property to “property held for the production of
income” merely because the property was rented for a temporary
period. We have declined to do so in past cases and likewise
decline to do so in this case. See, e.g., Murphy v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-292 (holding that the temporary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011