- 26 -
(3) The determination of profit motive must be made with
reference to the spread positions of the straddle and not merely
to the losing legs, since it is the overall scheme which
determines the deductibility or nondeductibility of the loss.
(4) If there are two or more motives, it must be determined
which is primary, or of first importance. The determination is
essentially factual, and greater weight is to be given to
objective facts than to self-serving statements characterizing
intent.
(5) Because the statute speaks of motive in "entering" a
transaction, the main focus must be at the time the transactions
were initiated. However, all circumstances surrounding the
transactions are material to the question of intent. Ewing v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. at 418 (citing Fox v. Commissioner, supra
at 1018, 1022).
Although petitioner testified that his sole motive for
investing with Hunter was to obtain a profit, a majority of the
circumstances surrounding the transactions points to the conclu-
sion that petitioner's primary motive was tax benefits.
In determining petitioner's primary motive for entering the
Hunter program, "greater weight is to be given to objective facts
than to self-serving statements characterizing intent." Ewing v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. at 418; Fox v. Commissioner, supra at 1022.
The objective facts indicate that petitioner's primary motive was
tax considerations. Thus, after applying the Fox guidelines to
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011