- 2 -
horse activity was an activity not engaged in for profit under
section 183, and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). If the Court
holds that the show horse activity was an activity engaged in for
profit, respondent alternatively claims that the expenses
incurred in the activity have not been substantiated.2
Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the
annexed exhibits, are so found and are incorporated herewith. At
the time the petition was filed, petitioner's legal residence was
Las Vegas, Nevada.3
Petitioner was employed full time during 1996 by Toyota
West, a local automobile dealer at Las Vegas, Nevada. Petitioner
operated or managed a marketing program for Toyota West that
involved the use of independent contractors who referred or
2 In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner realized gambling income of $7,052 in excess of the
$10,373 gambling income reported on petitioner's 1996 Federal
income tax return. At trial, petitioner conceded the $7,052 in
additional income but claimed additional losses from gambling for
that amount as an itemized deduction. Respondent conceded that
claim at trial.
3 Petitioner was married during 1996 and filed a joint
Federal income tax return with his wife, Irene Cramer. The
notice of deficiency was issued jointly to petitioner and his
wife; however, Mrs. Cramer did not petition this Court. Counsel
for respondent advised the Court at trial that the deficiency and
the sec. 6662(a) penalty had been assessed against Mrs. Cramer,
but an appropriate abatement would be made to the assessment
against her to the extent that any issues in this case are
decided in favor of petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011