Professional Tax Research Solutions from the Founder of Kleinrock. tax and accounting research
Parker Tax Pro Library
Accounting News Tax Analysts professional tax research software Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Find us on Pinterest
federal tax research
Professional Tax Software
tax and accounting
Tax Research Articles Tax Research Parker's Tax Research Articles Accounting Research CPA Client Letters Tax Research Software Client Testimonials Tax Research Software Federal Tax Research tax research

Accounting Software for Accountants, CPA, Bookeepers, and Enrolled Agents

CPA Tax Software



Tax Court: Lackluster Attempts to Rent Vacation Condo Precludes Deductions.

(Parker Tax Publishing June 9, 2015)

The Tax Court held that because taxpayers made minimal efforts to rent out their former vacation home, the condo had not been converted for an income-producing purpose and thus taxpayers could not take deductions for rental expenses or a loss on the property's sale. Redisch v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2015-95.


Between April 2003 and December 2010 Robert and Pamela Redisch purchased and sold two pieces of property in Hammock Dunes, a luxury oceanfront community under development in Florida. In 2002 they rented a golf villa and, after enjoying their stay, decided to purchase land in the community with the intention of building a seasonal residence. After spending more time as renters at Hammock Dunes, the Redisches decided to sell the land and buy an oceanfront condo instead. In 2004 they purchased a condo in one of the community's buildings (Porto Mar) for $875,000, which became a seasonal home for them and their daughter.

After their daughter's tragic death in 2006, the Redisches stopped staying at Porto Mar. Rather than immediately selling the property, the couple decided to rent it out to generate cash in the short term, believing that they could sell it later at a profit. The Redisches continued to visit Hammock Dunes, staying with a friend as a guest for weeks or months at a time.

In 2008 the Redisches listed Porto Mar with the Hammock Dunes realty office, removed most of their personal belongings and changed one of the bedrooms into a child's room at the suggestion of a real estate agent. The realtors featured Porto Mar in a portfolio of rental properties and told prospective land purchasers the condo was available to rent while building. The Redisches received inquiries from only two potential renters. Neither rented the property or even qualified as potential tenants (one wanted it for only two months and the other had a large dog; both situations conflicted with building restrictions).

In June 2009, acknowledging a lack of rental activity, the Redishes listed Porto Mar with another agent for either rental or sale. Later, as other units in the building went into foreclosure, the Redisches reduced the sales price of their unit and in 2010 sold Porto Mar for $725,000.

The Redisches filed joint returns for 2009 and 2010, including in each return a Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, claiming losses related to the attempt to rent Porto Mar in 2009 and its sale in 2010. The IRS assessed deficiencies for 2009 and 2010 in the amounts of $77,793 and $89,155, respectively, plus accuracy-related penalties under Code Sec. 6662(a).


Under Code Sec. 212 an individual can deduct expenses incurred during the taxable year for property held for the production of income. Code Sec. 165 (a) allows a loss to be deducted if incurred during a taxable year in any transaction entered into for profit and not otherwise compensated. An individual can claim a loss on property purchased or constructed as a primary residence if, before its sale, it is rented or otherwise used for an income-producing purpose and this use continues up to the time of sale. Reg. Sec. 1.165-9(b). Under both sections the profit motive must be the taxpayer's primary purpose.

The Tax Court has identified five factors relevant to determining if a taxpayer had a profit motive when considering whether residential property has been converted to an income producing purpose:

(1) length of time the house was occupied by the individual as his residence before placing it on the market for sale;

(2) whether the individual permanently abandoned all further personal use of the house;

(3) character of the property (recreational or otherwise);

(4) offers to rent; and

(5) offers to sell (Grant v. Comm'r, 84 T.C. 809 (1985)).

The Tax Court noted the Redisches initially bought property in the Hammock Dunes community intending to build a home, but instead purchased the Porto Mar condo. The court found they used the Porto Mar property as a seasonal home for four years before abandoning their personal use of it in 2008. Despite frequenting Hammock Dunes in later years, the Redishes never resided in the Porto Mar condo, staying with friends instead.

Although the couple planned to rent the condo, the tax court found their attempts were lackluster at best. The court noted that while Mr. Redisch testified that he signed a one-year agreement with a realty company, he did not provide any other evidence of such an agreement. Even if he had produced the contract, the court pointed out that the efforts of the realty company to rent out the Porto Mar property were limited to featuring it in a portfolio kept in the company's office and telling prospective buyers that it was available when showing it as a model. The court found it unsurprising that the minimal effort yielded only minimal interest; only two potential renters inquired about the condo, and both had interests that conflicted with building restrictions.

The court noted Mr. Redisch did not testify regarding any other tactics that he attempted to employ to rent out the Porto Mar property, other than getting a new real estate agent in 2009. Additionally, the court found Mr. Redisch did not provide any evidence, beyond a copy of a multiple listing service listing of the Porto Mar property, of the actions taken by the second agent to rent out the home.

Accordingly, the Tax Court determined that the Redisches did not make a bona fide attempt to rent out the Porto Mar property and therefore did not convert it to one held for the production of income. The Tax Court held that the Redisches were not entitled to their claimed losses and upheld accuracy-related penalties for 2009 and 2010.

For a discussion of rental income and expenses, see Parker Tax ¶ 86,105. (Staff Editor Parker Tax Publishing)

Disclaimer: This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer. The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Parker Tax Publishing guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. Parker Tax Publishing assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein.

Parker Tax Pro Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution.

Professional tax research

We hope you find our professional tax research articles comprehensive and informative. Parker Tax Pro Library gives you unlimited online access all of our past Biweekly Tax Bulletins, 22 volumes of expert analysis, 250 Client Letters, Bob Jennings Practice Aids, time saving election statements and our comprehensive, fully updated primary source library.

Parker Tax Research

Try Our Easy, Powerful Search Engine

A Professional Tax Research Solution that gives you instant access to 22 volumes of expert analysis and 185,000 authoritative source documents. But having access won’t help if you can’t quickly and easily find the materials that answer your questions. That’s where Parker’s search engine – and it’s uncanny knack for finding the right documents – comes into play

Things that take half a dozen steps in other products take two steps in ours. Search results come up instantly and browsing them is a cinch. So is linking from Parker’s analysis to practice aids and cited primary source documents. Parker’s powerful, user-friendly search engine ensures that you quickly find what you need every time you visit Our Tax Research Library.

Parker Tax Research Library

Dear Tax Professional,

My name is James Levey, and a few years back I founded a company named Kleinrock Publishing. I started Kleinrock out of frustration with the prohibitively high prices and difficult search engines of BNA, CCH, and RIA tax research products ... kind of reminiscent of the situation practitioners face today.

Now that Kleinrock has disappeared into CCH, prices are soaring again and ease-of-use has fallen by the wayside. The needs of smaller firms and sole practitioners are simply not being met.

To address the problem, I’ve partnered with a group of highly talented tax writers to create Parker Tax Publishing ... a company dedicated to the idea that comprehensive, authoritative tax information service can be both easy-to-use and highly affordable.

Our product, the Parker Tax Pro Library, is breathtaking in its scope. Check out the contents listing to the left to get a sense of all the valuable material you'll have access to when you subscribe.

Or better yet, take a minute to sign yourself up for a free trial, so you can experience first-hand just how easy it is to get results with the Pro Library!


James Levey

Parker Tax Pro Library - An Affordable Professional Tax Research Solution.

    ®2012-2018 Parker Tax Publishing. Use of content subject to Website Terms and Conditions.

IRS Codes and Regs
Tax Court Cases IRS guidance