George R. and Barbara H. Burrus - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          profit from its appreciation rather than for purposes of                    
          conducting the cattle activity.  It follows that the land was               
          “held primarily with the intent to profit from increase in its              
          value” during the years in issue, within the meaning of the                 
          regulations.  Sec. 1.183-1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs.7                         
               Since petitioners held the Maple Row land primarily with the           
          intent to profit from its appreciation, the holding of the land             
          and the farming activities are considered a single activity under           
          the regulations only if the farming activity reduces the cost of            
          holding the land.  Id.  The regulations further provide:                    
               the farming and holding of the land will be considered                 
               a single activity only if the income derived from                      
               farming exceeds the deductions attributable to the                     
               farming activity which are not directly attributable to                

               7 While there is evidence in the record that the Cheatham              
          Property was originally acquired by FBHR primarily for a cattle             
          activity (because of its proximity to Drs. Foreman’s and Burrus’s           
          medical practices), the regulations provide for separate activity           
          treatment of landholding and farming whenever the land “is                  
          purchased or held” primarily for its appreciation.  Sec. 1.183-             
          1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs.  (Emphasis added.)  We are persuaded by           
          his testimony and actions that by 1990 and the remaining years in           
          issue, Dr. Burrus was holding the Cheatham Property primarily for           
          its appreciation.  With respect to the Robertson and Sumner                 
          Properties, the record contains no evidence of Dr. Burrus’s                 
          intentions at the time of the acquisition of those properties,              
          although farming activities on the properties were reported on              
          certain of petitioners’ returns before the years in issue.                  
          However, Dr. Burrus’s testimony concerning his intentions during            
          the years in issue was directed at all three properties utilized            
          in the Maple Row operations, and persuades us that the Robertson            
          and Sumner Properties were likewise held primarily for their                
          appreciation potential during the years in issue.                           





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011