- 8 -
v. Commissioner, supra at 46; Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at
426; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
The regulations promulgated under section 183 provide a
nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining
whether an activity is engaged in for profit. Sec. 1.183-2(b),
Income Tax Regs. No single factor is determinative, Keanini v.
Commissioner, supra at 47; Taube v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 464,
479-480 (1987); sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. Taking those
factors into account, and based on the record as a whole, we
conclude that the resort activity was an activity entered into
for profit.
C. Petitioner Had An Objective To Make a Profit
The regulations provide: "Although a reasonable expectation
of profit is not required, the facts and circumstances must
indicate that the taxpayer entered into the activity * * * with
the objective of making a profit." Sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax
Regs. Respondent contends that petitioner did not have a profit
objective with his resort activity and that he was engaged in the
activity only to shelter income. We disagree.
When petitioner bought Playa de los Vivos, he was in the
process of selling Heart, phasing out his employment at Heart,
and trying to find a source of income to replace the salary Heart
paid him. At the same time that petitioner bought the resort, he
bought a home on a different piece of property than the resort.
Additionally, petitioner kept accurate books and records of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011