-13-
the burden to prove that he engaged in the activity with the
objective of realizing an economic profit within the meaning of
section 183. Surloff v. Commissioner, supra. If a taxpayer engages
in an activity without a profit objective, deductions attributable
to the activity are allowed only to the extent of the income
derived from the activity. Sec. 183; Hager v. Commissioner, 76
T.C. 759, 781 (1981).
Petitioner argues that he had an honest and actual profit
objective in purchasing the container. He also contends that his
investment in the container was a business or an enterprise entered
into for profit. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that
petitioner’s FoodSource investment was only a means of receiving
tax benefits. We agree with respondent.
9(...continued)
factors: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer carried on the
activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisors; (3)
the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the
activity; (4) the expectation that the assets used in the
activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer
in carrying on other similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the
taxpayer’s history of income or losses with respect to the
activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if any, which are
earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer; and (9)
elements indicating personal pleasure or recreation. No single
factor, nor the existence of even a majority of the factors, is
controlling. Abramson v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 360, 371 (1986);
Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 425-426 (1979), affd.
without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981); see also
Hendricks v. Commissioner, 32 F.3d 94, 98 (4th Cir. 1994), affd.
T.C. Memo. 1993-396. In applying these factors, “courts have
universally sought to ascertain the taxpayer’s true intent.”
Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd. without
opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011