Otis W. Jordan and Alma F. Jordan - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
               Guidance gleaned from separate discussions of other factors            
          is no less ambivalent, and comparisons to previously decided                
          cases add little towards the resolution of the controversy here.            
          Other cases “turn upon their own facts and no useful purpose                
          would be served by reviewing the conclusions reached in other               
          cases based upon the records made therein.”  Bessenyey v.                   
          Commissioner, supra at 274.                                                 
               Nothing in the record in this case suggests that petitioners           
          had any affectionate attachment to any of their race horses in              
          particular, or to horses in general.  They did not use their                
          horses or farm for recreational purposes.  Although mindful of              
          the suggestions to the contrary implicit in respondent’s                    
          position, we simply can see no other reason why petitioners would           
          have engaged in the activity and incurred the resulting expenses            
          unless for profit.  Taking into account the applicable factors as           
          a whole and considering the totality of the circumstances in this           
          case, we conclude that petitioners operated their horse racing              
          activity for profit during 1994.  That being so, we find that               
          petitioners’ horse racing activity constituted a trade or                   
          business during that year and they are entitled, under section              
          162(a) to some, but not all of the deductions here in dispute.              
               Deductions are a matter of legislative grace.  A taxpayer              
          who claims a deduction must establish that all requirements of              
          the statute that allows the deduction have been satisfied.  See             
          New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).                

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011