Charles H. Butler and Judith K. Butler - Page 17

                                                - 17 -                                                   

            day for 2 days on the weekend and 2 hours each weeknight) on the                             
            Pescadero property.  Sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs.                                    
                  The Taxpayers’ History of Income and Losses With Respect to                            
            the Activity.  Under section 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.,                                
            losses in the initial stages of an activity are not necessarily                              
            indicative of a lack of profit motive.  However, when unexplained                            
            losses have continued for an extended period of time, they may be                            
            probative that an activity is not engaged in for profit.  Allen                              
            v. Commissioner, supra at 34.  Specifically, the presence of                                 
            losses in the formative years of a business is not inconsistent                              
            with an intention to achieve a later profitable level of                                     
            operation.  The goal must be to realize a profit on the entire                               
            operation, which presupposes recouping past losses in addition to                            
            current expenses.  Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 261, 274                               
            (1965), affd. 379 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1967).                                                   
                  Petitioners did not take steps to address the continuous and                           
            substantial losses incurred in connection with the Pescadero                                 
            property.                                                                                    
                  Petitioners' main argument is that their farm could not be                             
            profitable due to ongoing legal disputes.  They assert that they                             
            were precluded from expanding their farming operations because of                            
            the uncertainty regarding the water supply.  Petitioners did not,                            
            however, show that the herd size was maximized to comport with                               
            the amount of water available in the reservoir.  Petitioners'                                





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011