-27-
favor. By the same token, it is not a factor in petitioner’s
favor.
Conclusions
From 1985 through the end of 1992, just before the years in
issue, (1) petitioner had incurred about $80,000 of costs for
video equipment, (2) petitioner had lost increasing amounts of
money for each of the 8 years since he embarked on his videotape
activity, and (3) petitioner was approaching age 80. During the
3 years in issue, (1) petitioner incurred about $75,000 more of
costs for video equipment, (2) petitioner’s videotape sales
totaled $438, of which he had collected only $258 by the time of
the trial, and (3) petitioner lost another $70,000 on his
videotape activity. Petitioner's age ordinarily would not be
relevant to our determination. However, petitioner's substantial
capital investment at that age makes it more important that
petitioner be able to show that he really intended to earn enough
to (1) recoup his capital investment and also (2) earn a profit
on that capital investment.
Petitioner seemed to be unable to articulate any plan, or
even any moderately clear vision, for profitability of his
videotape activity.
We conclude, and we have found, on the basis of the
preponderance of the evidence, that petitioner did not engage in
his videotape activity for profit.
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