-17-
to be classified as not engaged in for profit”. Sec. 1.183-
2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs. Congress did not require that
taxpayers dislike an activity as a prerequisite to a finding that
they are engaged in the activity for profit. Crail v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-40. The Lu-Joy was equipped as a
commercial fishing boat, and Mr. Lamb did not use the Lu-Joy for
recreational purposes. We believe that Mr. Lamb was a fisherman
whose purpose was to earn money from the sale of tuna.
Based on a consideration of all the above factors and having
heard Mr. Lamb’s testimony at trial, we believe that his primary
objective for engaging in fishing activity during 1990 and 1991,
was to make a profit. Takahashi v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 126,
132 (1986); Thomas v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1244, 1269 (1985),
affd. 792 F.2d 1256 (4th Cir. 1986); Seaman v. Commissioner, 84
T.C. 564, 588 (1985); Allen v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 33; Dunn
v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 715, 720 (1978), affd. 615 F.2d 578 (2d
Cir. 1980); Jasionownski v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. at 319. Rising
tuna prices enticed Mr. Lamb to purchase the Lu-Joy and reenter
the tuna fishing business in 1988. We find Mr. Lamb’s testimony
that he thought he “was going to make a killing” credible.
Unfortunately, Mr. Lamb’s eyesight deteriorated due to his
diabetic retinopathy.6
6At trial, Mr. Lamb testified that “I’d come in and talk
with some of the other fishermen on the dock at night and they
had seen fish, a school of fish here and a school of fish
(continued...)
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