2
After concessions, the issues remaining for our consideration
are: (1) Whether, in 1990, petitioners were engaged in an
activity for profit pursuant to section 183(a); and (2) whether
petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under 6651(a)(1)
for 1990.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioners resided in Modesto, California, at the time the
petition in this case was filed. Mark Massingill (petitioner) is
an individual proprietor who, at various times, has engaged in
engineering and metal mining and refining activities. These
activities included, but were not limited to: The engineering
and fabrication of industrial controls and laboratory
instruments; recovering, refining, and selling mercury; testing
and examining mineral properties; and miscellaneous researching
and developing. The activity in question (metal mining and
refining) does not involve the employment of individuals other
than petitioner.
Petitioner developed his knowledge of the metal mining and
refining field from an interest that began in his childhood. He
possessed a rock collection upon which he performed chemical
analyses of minerals and ore specimens. Petitioner fabricated
his own chemicals such as nitric and hydrochloric acids in order
2 Respondent has conceded that the sec. 6662(a) penalty is
not applicable in this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011