- 19 - I. Conclusion After reviewing the entire record,8 we conclude that petitioners did not engage in the ranching and farming activities with an actual and honest objective of making a profit within the meaning of section 183.9 Because we dispose of the section 183 issue against petitioners, we need not reach respondent’s alternative argument that petitioners have failed to substantiate the claimed expenses which resulted in losses for the ranching and farming activities. II. St. John Rental Property Expenses On their 1994 tax return, petitioners deducted $149,230 of expenses with regard to the St. John rental property. On the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioners and the Trust had substantiated expenses in the amount of $64,937, of which petitioners could deduct one-half.10 Petitioners bear the burden of proof with regard to the claimed deductions. See Rule 8 Petitioners submitted an expert report by Stephen J. Kleberg, which opined, among other things, that petitioners conducted their ranching and farming operations in a businesslike manner. We found Mr. Kleberg’s report and testimony to be of no assistance in deciding this case. In light of the fact that Mr. Kleberg visited only the Melrose and Chireno ranches and did not evaluate petitioners’ limited books and records, his testimony was implausible or questionable. 9 We have evaluated various facts and circumstances subsequent to the years in issue. See Taube v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 464, 482 (1987). These facts and circumstances do not affect our conclusion that petitioners did not have a profit motive during the years in issue. 10 Since the issuance of the notice of deficiency, respondent has made several concessions affecting the $64,937 in expenses.Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011