- 14 -
Respondent and petitioner have provided us with no caselaw
concerning the sale of classic cars, or cars in general, but
rather have highlighted cases concerning sales of real estate and
artwork.15 Each case turned on the unique facts at issue, and we
can discern no standard from the caselaw to apply here. We
therefore view the frequency of sales factor in the context of
our own facts and apply no standardized test to determine whether
the sales were sufficiently frequent.
Petitioner sold 80 cars over approximately 12 years.16 The
parties focus on different time periods to support their
arguments. Petitioner focuses upon the higher number of sales in
the years at issue to argue that the cars were held for sale as
inventory. In contrast, respondent focuses upon the smaller
number of sales between 1989 and 1998 to argue that the cars were
held for investment purposes. The holding purpose inquiry begins
at the time the property is acquired and spans the entire course
15Real property was held for sale where the taxpayer sold 37
lots in 3 years, and 10 lots in 2 years. See Biedenharn Realty
Co. v. United States, 526 F.2d at 416; Thompson v. Commissioner,
322 F.2d 122, 124-125 (5th Cir. 1963), affg. in part and revg. in
part 38 T.C. 153 (1962). Artwork was held for investment where
the taxpayer sold eight paintings in 2 years. See Williford v.
Commissioner, supra.
16The dealership owned more than 80 classic cars during the
time that the museum was open.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011