Melissa S. Spranger - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         

          Burger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-523); Sec. 1.183-2(b)(9),           
          Income Tax Regs.  Weighing the personal pleasures derived from              
          petitioner's involvement with her dogs against the profit                   
          potential that could result from her breeding activity, we are              
          satisfied that the breeding activity was conducted more for the             
          purpose of subsidizing the costs of maintaining and showing her             
          dogs than for profit.                                                       
               Our conclusion on the point is further supported by the                
          history of losses incurred by petitioner since she began treating           
          the activity as a trade or business for Federal income tax                  
          purposes.  "[W]here losses continue to be sustained beyond the              
          period which customarily is necessary to bring the operation to             
          profitable status such continued losses, if not explainable,                
          * * * may be indicative that the activity is not being engaged in           
          for profit."  Sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.  During 1993,            
          petitioner deducted a $28,617 loss attributable to her dog                  
          breeding activity.  Since 1989, when petitioner began reporting             
          the income and expenses attributable to her dog breeding                    
          activity, she has never realized a profit.  Over a 4-year period            
          starting in 1993, expenses exceeded income by almost $60,000.               
          During that period annual income ranged from a low of $250 to a             
          high of $575.  The magnitude of annual and cumulative losses                
          compared to the low levels of income generated strongly indicates           
          that petitioner did not conduct the activity for profit.  Smith             
          v. Commissioner, supra; Burger v. Commissioner, supra.                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011