- 11 - were constantly fluctuating, petitioner seems to have been indifferent to the realities of the marketplace. Petitioner did not secure any of the required permits for the type of building he was constructing or the type of operation he was conducting. Petitioner did not even take the minimal step of maintaining a separate bank account for this activity. This factor does not support a conclusion that petitioner's activity was profit motivated. 2. Expertise of Petitioner We consider the expertise of petitioner and the professionals he consulted with respect to the technology he sought to develop and with respect to his prospects for doing so profitably. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs; see Underwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-625; Burger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-523, affd. 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987). Petitioner had some relevant engineering experience, but he lacked the expertise he would need to turn a workable device into a commercially viable venture. He did not consult with professional advisers who would have been able to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. This factor does not support a conclusion that petitioner's activity was profit motivated. 3. Time and Effort Spent in Conducting the Activity The fact that a taxpayer devotes much of his or her own time to an activity may indicate a profit objective if the activityPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011