- 6 -
respondent's position on any of the factors provided pursuant to
section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., (5) the Court found for
petitioners with regard to all of the relevant factors pursuant
to section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., and (6) respondent knew,
or should have known, that the facts in the instant case
supported petitioners' position.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that petitioners
have offered no specific details that establish an overriding
weakness in respondent's circumstantial case or any legal
authority with which respondent's case is clearly inconsistent.
Additionally, respondent contends that petitioners are
essentially arguing that, because petitioners won the case,
respondent's position was not substantially justified.
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., provides a
nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in deciding whether
an activity is engaged in for profit. As stated in our prior
opinion, we considered those factors in reaching a decision on
the merits in the instant case. No single factor, and not even
the existence of a majority of such factors, is controlling.
Keanini v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 41, 47 (1990).
We conclude that respondent's position was substantially
justified. Among the facts in the record that bore negatively on
petitioners' claimed profit motive were the following: (1)
Petitioners had no financial plan or written budget; (2)
petitioners went bankrupt; (3) petitioner Eugene J. Phillips had
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011