An intention to make a profit supports trading, but by itself is not conclusive.
Systematic and repeated transactions will support 'trade'.
Is the asset of such a type or amount that it can only be turned to advantage by a sale? Or did it yield an income or give 'pride of possession', for example, a picture for personal enjoyment?
Transactions that are similar to those of an existing trade may themselves be trading.
Was the asset repaired, modified or improved to make it more easily saleable or saleable at a greater profit?
Was the asset sold in a way that was typical of trading organisations? Alternatively, did it have to be sold to raise cash for an emergency?
Was money borrowed to buy the asset? Could the funds only be repaid by selling the asset?
Assets that are the subject of trade will normally, but not always, be sold quickly. Therefore, an intention to resell an asset shortly after purchase will support trading. However, an asset, which is to be held indefinitely, is much less likely to be a subject of trade.
An asset that is acquired by inheritance, or as a gift, is less
likely to be the subject of trade.
These 'badges' will not be present in every case and of those
that are, some may point one way and some the other. The presence
or absence of a particular badge is unlikely, by itself, to provide
a conclusive answer to the question of whether or not there is a
trade. The weight to be attached to each badge will depend on the
precise circumstances.
The approach by the courts has been to decide questions of
trade on the basis of the overall impression gained from a review
of all the badges.