11
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd. without published
opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981). There is no requirement
that a reasonable expectation of profit exist. Elliot v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 960, 970 (1988), affd. without published
opinion 899 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1990). A taxpayer's mere statement
of intent to make a profit is not controlling; rather, the
objective facts must be examined, and greater weight will be
given to these, rather than a mere statement of intent. Dreicer
v. Commissioner, supra at 645; sec. 1.183-2(a) and (b), Income
Tax. Regs. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he had a
profit objective. Rule 142(a); Surloff v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.
210, 233 (1983).
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., provides nine factors
to be considered in determining whether an activity is engaged in
for profit. They are: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer
carries 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 assets used in
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) the
elements of personal pleasure or recreation that may be present.
No single factor is controlling. Abramson v. Commissioner, 86
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