Raymond B. and Joan M. Marvin - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          that the assets used by the taxpayer may appreciate in value; (5)           
          the success of the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or                 
          dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or              
          losses with respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional           
          profits, if any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of              
          the taxpayer; and (9) whether elements of personal pleasure or              
          recreation are involved.  No single factor, nor the existence of            
          even a majority of the factors, is controlling, but rather it is            
          an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances in the case,               
          taken as a whole, which is 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, we find that petitioners did             
          not engage in the jade activity for profit.                                 
               First, petitioners did not conduct the jade activity in a              
          businesslike manner.  Petitioners did not maintain formal                   
          accounts or books for the jade activity.  Petitioners also failed           
          to present a business plan, financial projections, and financial            
          statements for the jade activity.  Petitioners' failure to                  
          maintain complete and accurate records demonstrates that they               
          failed to take the ordinary care of business people in managing             
          and monitoring their affairs.  See Elliott v. Commissioner, 90              
          T.C. 960, 971-972 (1988), affd. without published opinion 899               
          F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1990).                                                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011