- 9 - The weight and credibility of the evidence presented suggests that petitioners may have accepted some income for the use of their farm which defrayed the cost of their recreational horse-related activities. Still, the expectation of profit was lacking. Petitioners enjoyed substantial personal benefits from the use of the farm, but that, by itself, does not preclude their activities from being "for profit". See Jackson v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 312, 317 (1972). However, the presence of personal motives may indicate that the activity is not engaged in for profit. See Glenn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-399, affd. without published opinion 103 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1996). When petitioners moved to Maryland and rented the farm at issue, they saved themselves the cost of boarding their own horses elsewhere and had greater access to the horses for their daughters. Petitioners' testimony describes activities which did not exceed what would be necessary to care for their own horses. Barns and stables were renovated. Family members helped in exchange for meals. Mrs. Hudnall cleaned stables. These activities do not go beyond those related to the care of one's own horses. Petitioners did not produce credible evidence that the horse-related activity had a chance of recovering the losses it had incurred. See Bessenyey v. Commissioner, supra at 274. ThePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011