- 7 -
determinative. These factors are not applicable or appropriate
in every case. See Abramson v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 360, 371
(1986).
Based upon the above factors as applied to the circumstances
of this case, we find that petitioner did not engage in the
consulting activity for profit.
First, petitioner's consulting activity was not conducted in
a businesslike manner. Petitioner did not maintain a separate
bank account, formal accounts, or books for the consulting
activity. He did not even have his own telephone line for this
activity but used a roommate's line. Petitioner's failure to
keep client lists and business records supports the conclusion
that he did not conduct the activity in question in a manner
calculated to produce a profit.
Petitioner also has failed to convince us of his claim that
he expended virtually all of his nonemployment hours carrying on
the consulting activity. We find that petitioner's claims
regarding the amount of time he spent pursuing the consulting
activity are exaggerated. Furthermore, petitioner's reliance on
his diary to substantiate the amount of time he spent pursuing
the activity is unconvincing. Petitioner has conceded that his
diary entries were not even written contemporaneously. The
record as a whole is consistent with the conclusion that
petitioner's investment advisory activity was a spare time
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011