18
State of California prevented him from earning money in his
pursuit. We recognize that the fact that the taxpayer devoted
less than full time to the activity does not necessarily indicate
the lack of a profit objective, where the taxpayer employs
competent and qualified persons to carry on the activity. Sec.
1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs. However, this is not the
situation here. This activity was maintained alone by
petitioner.
Although petitioner chose to engage in a personal pursuit
for relief from the environmental regulations, he did nothing to
remedy his lack of income or to reduce his expenses. By his
testimony, petitioner spent several months in 1990 addressing
compliance issues with DHS. We find that petitioner was
genuinely motivated by the desire to preserve his assets. On the
other hand, we think that the minimal amount of time petitioner
spent in this activity does not support his contention that he
was engaged in this activity with a profit objective in 1990.
4. The Expectation That Assets Used in the Activity
May Appreciate in Value
Petitioner did not present any evidence that any of the
assets used in his metal mining and refining activity would
appreciate in value.
5. The Success of the Taxpayer in Carrying On Other
Similar or Dissimilar Activities
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011