- 9 -
Memo. 1985-197; Independent Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Commissioner,
781 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. Lahr v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1984-472; Carter v. Commissioner, 645 F.2d 784, 786
(9th Cir. 1981), affg. T.C. Memo. 1978-202; Hirsch v.
Commissioner, 315 F.2d 731, 736 (9th Cir. 1963), affg. T.C. Memo.
1961-256; see also Snyder v. United States, 674 F.2d 1359 (10th
Cir. 1982). Whether petitioner had the requisite profit
objective is a question of fact to be resolved from all relevant
facts and circumstances. E.g., Drobny v. Commissioner, 86 T.C.
1326, 1341 (1986), affd. 113 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 1997); sec.
1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. Profit in this context means
economic profit independent of tax savings. E.g., Antonides v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 686, 694 (1988), affd. 893 F.2d 656 (4th
Cir. 1990). The burden of proving a profit objective rests with
petitioner. Rule 142(a); e.g., Thomas v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.
1244, 1269 (1985), affd. 792 F.2d 1256 (4th Cir. 1986).
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., provides a non-
exclusive list of factors we consider to determine whether a
taxpayer engaged in the venture with a profit objective. They
include: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer carried on the
activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisers; (3)
the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the
activity; (4) the expectation that the assets used in the
activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011