- 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