- 72 -
reference to his purpose “at some point before he decided to make
the sale in dispute.” Suburban Realty Co. v. United States,
supra at 182; cf. Guardian Indus. Corp. & Subs., supra at 316.
At trial, petitioner testified that he viewed the Prather
Ranch Property as a “long-term situation from a retirement
standpoint”. Keeping in mind that it is petitioner’s burden to
show his entitlement to capital gains treatment, we are not
convinced that petitioner acquired the Prather Ranch Property as
a long-term investment.52 His purchase of this property was
similar in many respects to his acquisition of other properties
in his real estate business. Petitioner did not offer any
evidence showing that this property, when acquired, was
exceptional. The record reflects that like petitioner’s
acquisitions of other properties in the ordinary course of his
52Petitioner also testified:
Q When you say--was that something--did you intend
to deal with that property as you deal with most of
your other properties?
A You’re meaning develop it and immediately sell it
and stuff like that?
Q Right.
A No.
We cannot accept petitioner’s testimony in and of itself that he
did not intend to resell the property on its acquisition.
Further, for reasons previously stated, we must reject
petitioner’s suggestion that his business was confined to the
development and immediate sale of properties. The record
suggests several properties were acquired, held for a
considerable length of time, and then sold without development.
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011