-10-
Whether the required profit objective exists is to be
determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of
each case. Hirsch v. Commissioner, 315 F.2d 731, 737 (9th Cir.
1963), affg. T.C. Memo. 1961-256; Golanty v. Commissioner, 72
T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d
170 (9th Cir. 1981); sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. While the
focus of the test is on the subjective intention of the taxpayer,
greater weight is given to the objective facts than to the
taxpayer’s mere statement of his or her intent. Independent
Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Commissioner, 781 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir.
1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-472; Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78
T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd. without published opinion 702 F.2d
1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983); sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that they possessed the
requisite intention and that respondent’s determination that an
activity was not engaged in for profit is erroneous. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933)
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., sets forth some
relevant factors for determining whether an activity is engaged
in for profit. No one factor is controlling. Brannen v.
Commissioner, 722 F.2d 695, 704 (11th Cir. 1984), affg. 78 T.C.
471 (1982); Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 426. The relevant
factors include: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer carries on
the activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his or her
advisers; (3) the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011