Buono v. Commissioner
74 T.C. 187, 1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 141, 74 T.C. No. 15 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Profit from the sale of a single tract of land is treated as capital gain, even if the owner undertook significant subdivision activities to enhance the property's value, provided the property was held for investment and not sold in multiple, frequent transactions indicative of a trade or business. Merely taking legal steps to subdivide property before a single sale does not, by itself, convert an investor into a dealer holding property for sale in the ordinary course of business.
Facts:
- In 1967, Henry Traphagen and John Fiorino contracted to purchase a ~130-acre tract of farmland from Kenneth V. Hayes.
- The petitioners formed Marlboro Improvement Corp., an S-corporation, in June 1968 to acquire and hold the property, intending to resell it as a single tract after about 1.5 years.
- To increase the property's value, Marlboro Improvement began the legal process of seeking subdivision approval from the Marlboro Planning Board.
- The township unexpectedly changed its zoning ordinance from three-quarter-acre to two-acre lots, causing the initial application to be denied.
- Marlboro Improvement sued the township and reached a settlement in 1972, which permitted a new subdivision plan based on half-acre zoning.
- After obtaining final approval for a subdivision of 79 half-acre lots in November 1972, Marlboro Improvement sold this entire subdivided portion as a single parcel to a developer, Fairfield Manor, Inc., in January 1973.
- Marlboro Improvement did not make any physical improvements to the land, such as installing roads or utilities, nor did it advertise the property or sell any individual lots to separate customers.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) determined tax deficiencies for several individuals (Petitioners) for the 1973 tax year.
- The petitioners filed a single, consolidated petition in the United States Tax Court, a court of first instance, to challenge the asserted deficiencies.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the sale of real property, which was acquired for investment and sold as a single tract to one buyer, constitute the sale of a capital asset even though the seller engaged in significant subdivision activities to enhance the property's value before the sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Nims, Judge
Yes, the sale of the real property constitutes the sale of a capital asset. The court determined that Marlboro Improvement did not hold the property 'primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business.' The most important factor in this analysis was the lack of frequent and substantial sales activity; the corporation acquired only one tract and sold the primary portion in a single, isolated transaction. The court characterized the extensive subdivision efforts not as business operations, but as 'purely legal steps to make it more marketable.' Although these activities enhanced the property's value, they did not rise to the level of a trade or business without a corresponding pattern of frequent sales or physical development. The court also rejected the argument that the real estate backgrounds of certain shareholders should be imputed to the corporation, finding that even those individuals would have held this specific property as an investment, not as dealer property.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between an investor and a dealer in real estate for tax purposes, particularly when pre-sale development activities occur. The court's holding establishes that significant legal efforts to enhance a property's value, such as obtaining subdivision approval, do not automatically convert an investment asset into ordinary income property. By prioritizing the frequency and substantiality of sales over the extent of pre-sale activities, the decision provides a degree of certainty for investors that a single, bulk sale of a subdivided property can still qualify for capital gains treatment. This precedent distinguishes 'purely legal steps' from the physical improvements and multiple lot sales that are hallmarks of a real estate business.
Unlock the full brief for Buono v. Commissioner