- 15 -
717 (10th Cir. 1952), affg. 16 T.C. 698 (1951); see also Cottle
v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 467, 488 (1987).
II. Activities of the Taxpayer and Those Acting in the
Taxpayer’s Behalf--Such as Making Improvements or Advertising
for the Sale of the Property
With respect to the second factor, the sales of JCLC’s
unimproved realty by JCLC were unsolicited. The owners of JCLC,
including petitioner, did not hold real estate or broker’s
licences. JCLC did not advertise the property for sale or hire
representatives to assist in selling the property. Respondent,
however, argues that the development activities performed on the
Jackson Creek property by Triview were done on behalf of JCLC and
petitioner or at petitioner’s direction. Respondent relies on
the sales agreement with Elite requiring that JCLC be responsible
for some infrastructure improvements. Respondent also argues
that the loan agreements between Vision, JCLC, and CNB, and the
purchase of Triview bonds by Centre and Colorado Structures
provided the financing for Triview’s development activities. In
that regard respondent argues that these financing arrangements
caused Triview to operate under the direction of JCLC.
Respondent’s argument is based on the fact that there was common
ownership of JCLC, Centre, Vision, and Colorado Structures.
Petitioner acknowledges that JCLC was contractually
obligated for some improvements to the Jackson Creek property,
but petitioner notes that Triview was not contractually obligated
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011