- 16 - and that the taxpayer's primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit. Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987). We have found that petitioner charged Murray less than the fair market value to rent her property. Benefiting a related party with a below-market rental agreement is evidence of the absence of a profit objective. LaMusga v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-742; Sheridan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1958-215; see also Jasionowski v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312 (1976) (lease agreement with friend that provided for rent in the amount of the total cost of the property's insurance and taxes held to lack profit motive). Accordingly, we find that petitioner was not engaged in the trade or business of renting her property during the year at issue. Consequently, the loss incurred from the sale of the property is not deductible under section 165(c)(1). Held for the Production of Income We now consider whether petitioner held the property for the production of income so as to permit the loss from its sale to be deducted under section 165(c)(2). Petitioner testified that when she acquired the property she did not intend to hold it for sale, but for rent. Petitioner husband testified that petitioner spent considerable time preparing the house for her brother to rent, to whom, predominately for personal reasons, petitioner let the propertyPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011