- 30 -
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd. without opinion
702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Although the taxpayer's expecta-
tion of a profit need not be reasonable, he or she must have a
good faith objective of making a profit. E.g., Dreicer v.
Commissioner, supra at 645; Dunn v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 715,
720 (1978), affd. on another issue 615 F.2d 578 (2d Cir. 1980);
sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. Petitioners bear the burden of
proving the requisite intent. E.g., Golanty v. Commissioner, 72
T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d
170 (9th Cir. 1981); Johnson v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 791, 813
(1973), affd. 495 F.2d 1079 (6th Cir. 1974). Whether a taxpayer
is engaged in an activity with the requisite profit objective is
determined from all the facts and circumstances. E.g., Hulter
v. Commissioner, supra at 393; Taube v. Commissioner, 88 T.C.
464, 480 (1987); Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 426; sec.
1.183-2(a) and (b), Income Tax Regs. More weight is given to
objective facts than to the taxpayer's mere statement of his or
her intent. E.g., Dreicer v. Commissioner, supra at 645; sec.
1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
The regulations promulgated under section 183 list the
following nine factors that should normally be taken into account
in determining whether an activity is engaged in for profit:
(1) The manner in which the taxpayer carried on the activity,
(2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisers, (3) the time
and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity,
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011