-26-
On brief, petitioner contends that “the mere fact that a
taxpayer has a substantial income from other sources does not
foreclose a profit motive.” We agree. This is but an
illustration of the proposition that no one factor is conclusive.
The record does not show that petitioner needed profits, or
even gross income, from his videotape activity. His other income
apparently was substantial enough, even after the videotape
losses, to maintain his life style. The record does not include
any indication that petitioner feared that any of his major
income sources was going to “dry up” and that he thought it
prudent to engage in his videotape activity to develop a
replacement source of income. Compare the instant case with
Nickerson v. Commissioner, 700 F.2d 402, 403, 406 (7th Cir.
1983), revg. T.C. Memo. 1981-321.
This factor favors respondent.
(9) Elements of Personal Pleasure
Petitioner took great pains to provide high quality
videotapes. His methods were not slapdash. He preserved his,
his family’s, his classmates’, his shipmates’, and his friends’
memories. He preserved history. He enjoyed what he did. As we
have noted, “a business will not be turned into a hobby merely
because the owner finds it pleasurable”. Jackson v.
Commissioner, 59 T.C. 312, 317 (1972). Thus, petitioner’s
enjoyment of his work should not be a factor in respondent’s
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011