Robert E. and Carloyn S. Holmes - Page 34

                                       - 34 -                                         

            land on which this work was done is contiguous to the land                
            on which petitioners maintain their personal residence.                   
            We believe that some of this work contributed directly or                 
            indirectly to the enjoyment of petitioners' residence.                    
            Furthermore, while petitioner hired Mr. Robinson, an                      
            experienced farmer, to cultivate row crops on a portion of                
            his land, petitioner did not cultivate row crops on the                   
            property during all of the years in issue.                                

            (4) Expectation That Assets Used in the Activity                          
                  May Appreciate in Value                                             
                  Section 1.183-2(b)(4), Income Tax Regs., provides as                
            follows:                                                                  

                  The term "profit" encompasses appreciation in                       
                  the value of assets, such as land, used in the                      
                  activity.  Thus, the taxpayer may intend to                         
                  derive a profit from the operation of the                           
                  activity, and may also intend that, even if no                      
                  profit from current operations is derived, an                       
                  overall profit will result when appreciation                        
                  in the value of land used in the activity                           
                  is realized since income from the activity                          
                  together with the appreciation of the land                          
                  will exceed the expenses of operation. * * *                        

            According to the depreciation schedules attached to                       
            petitioners' returns, it appears that petitioners paid                    
            $95,000 for their land and more than $68,000 for the                      
            improvements and equipment used in connection with their                  
            farm activity.  Petitioners make a general argument that                  





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011