- 6 -
trade or business regarding Southern Express. Rule 142(a); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
The separate trade or business of promoting, developing,
organizing, and financing startup businesses does exist for
purposes of sections 165 and 166. See Deely v. Commissioner, 73
T.C. 1081, 1092-1093 (1980), supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1981-229;
Newman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-63; Farrar v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-385. The difficulty lies in
differentiating between investment activity and the trade or
business of promoting. Newman v. Commissioner, supra.
On the basis of all the facts and circumstances, we hold
that petitioner did not pursue promoting, developing, organizing,
and financing startup businesses with the continuity and
regularity to qualify as being engaged in a trade or business.
Cf. Newman v. Commissioner, supra; Farrar v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner's primary trade or business was as a real estate
broker. There is nothing, however, which prohibits a taxpayer
from pursuing more than one trade or business. See Commissioner
v. Groetzinger, supra at 35; Curphey v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.
766, 775-776 (1980). In addition to his real estate activities,
petitioner was involved in 6 startup businesses, including
Southern Express, from the 1960's through the late 1980's. This
sporadic activity cannot qualify as being engaged in a trade or
business.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011