- 5 -
triggered an audit by the Internal Revenue Service. Petitioner
did not go to church very often, but his wife and daughter
attended regularly.
OPINION
Respondent determined that petitioners failed to
substantiate their farm or Schedule F deductions for the 1991
taxable year. For 1992 and 1993, respondent also determined that
petitioners failed to substantiate farm or Schedule F deductions
and that they failed to show that the farming activity was a
trade or business entered into for profit and that the expenses
were ordinary and necessary. The evidence in this record reveals
that petitioners held and used the land with a dual purpose.
They leased a substantial portion of their farm to an individual
for farming purposes and had a secondary purpose to hold and
manage the property for investment purposes and the eventual
benefit of their children. We do not find that petitioners were
in the business of growing trees for a profit as they contended.
Of the $30,340, $52,400, and $48,273 of claimed farming
expenditures for 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively, the largest
portions were claimed for travel by car and truck. As an
example, for 1993 petitioners claimed $22,693 for car and truck
expenses and $21,000 for travel,4 or $43,693 of the $48,273 total
4 If we accepted that petitioner traveled a 300-mile round
trip three times per week, then his cost per mile for 1993 would
have approximated $.045 per mile--($21,000 divided by (50 weeks x
3 x 300)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011