Timothy J. Phelan and Deborah A. Phelan - Page 14

                                        - 14 -                                        

         No one factor is determinative, and neither is the presence or               
         absence of any single factor determinative.  Each case is                    
         considered in light of its own facts and circumstances.  See                 
         Victory Housing No. 2, Inc. v. Commissioner, 205 F.2d 371, 372               
         (10th Cir. 1953), revg. 18 T.C. 466 (1952).                                  
         I.  Purpose of Acquisition                                                   
              With respect to JCLC’s purpose of acquisition, it was                   
         organized with the intent and for the purpose of purchasing the              
         Jackson Creek property and holding it for investment and                     
         appreciation in value.  JCLC purchased the Jackson Creek property            
         with knowledge that the land would eventually be developed into              
         residential housing.  The initial master plan to develop the                 
         property was approved by the town of Monument, and the town                  
         enacted an annexation ordinance rezoning the property, subject to            
         final site approval.  In addition, pursuant to the Tap Fee                   
         Agreement, the Intergovernmental Agreement, and the Annexation               
         and Development Agreement, Triview was obligated to improve the              
         land and prepare it for further development.  The investors in               
         JCLC were familiar with these aspects and acquired and held the              
         property for its appreciation in value.                                      
              Although the purpose for the acquisition of property is of              
         some weight, ultimately, the purpose for which property is held              
         is of great significance.  Mauldin v. Commissioner, 195 F.2d 714,            







Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011