-31-
needed, then he does not seek it. He does what he believes to be
appropriate and does not do what he believes to be superfluous,
regardless of the views of others.
Thus, petitioner does not bother with written business
plans. This would make less difference if petitioner had
business plans in his head. But petitioner was unable to
articulate any plans that he had as to how his videotape activity
was going to--or that he hoped would--produce a profit.
Petitioner did not offer any explanation of why he treated
his avocado-raising losses, shown on the Schedule F for each tax
return, differently from the way he treated his Schedule C
videotape activity, deducting the latter losses but ordinarily
not deducting the former losses. Supra table 7.
It appears that, at some undetermined time in the early
1980’s, some unidentified IRS employee suggested that petitioner
use Schedule C in connection with some activity that may have
been a precursor of petitioner’s videotape activity.
Petitioner’s reliance on the advice assertedly given to him
by an IRS employee a decade or so earlier is not exculpatory
because the record does not show what information petitioner gave
to the IRS employee and exactly what advice the IRS employee gave
to petitioner. Compare, e.g., Howard v. Commissioner, 931 F.2d
578, 582 (9th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-531, with Weis v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 473, 486-488 (1990). From the sparse
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