- 14 -
Our review of the record, in conjunction with our
observation of petitioner during his testimony, leads us to
believe that petitioner had personal reasons for operating the
store. We believe that, in part, he operated his store out of
his love and affection for his mother. She enjoyed working
there, and she worked there without compensation. As this Court
has observed with respect to this factor: "The gratification
derived from an occupation worth doing, possibly beneficial to
others, and probably requiring long hours of arduous labor must
still not be confused with an intention to return a profit."
White v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 90, 94 (1954), affd. 227 F.2d
779 (6th Cir. 1955).
This factor supports respondent's determination.
10. Other Considerations
a. Type of Business
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit questioned
whether a retail business can be an activity not engaged in for
profit under section 183. Ranciato v. Commissioner, 52 F.3d at
27-28. We believe it can. This Court has previously found that
taxpayers did not have the required profit objective with respect
to businesses typically run for profit. See, e.g., Houston v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-159 (retail gun store); Ypsilantis
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-644 (import/export commodities
business); Hutchinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-568
(retail cosmetics business).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011