Harold W. and Julia A. Kahla - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          These deficiencies stem from respondent’s disallowance of certain           
          deductions and losses attributable to petitioners’ cattle-raising           
          and deer operations (sometimes referred to as petitioners’ Schedule         
          F activities)1 conducted during the years in issue.  Petitioners’           
          Schedule F activities were conducted at two different locations:            
          Buckview Ranch (the North Ranch), which is located in Leon County,          
          near Centerville, Texas, and El Squato Ranch (the South Ranch),             
          which is located in Wells County, near Encinal, Texas.                      
               The issue for decision is whether petitioners’ Schedule F              
          activities were activities engaged in for profit.  We hold they             
          were not.2                                                                  
               All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in          
          effect for the years in issue.                                              






               1    The parties stipulated that the cattle-raising and deer           
          operations constitute one activity.                                         
               2    During the course of trial preparation, respondent’s              
          counsel discovered that certain labor and fuel costs claimed on             
          petitioners’ 1992-94 returns as expenses were capital in nature             
          and should have been depreciated rather than expensed.                      
          Thereafter, respondent filed an amendment to answer asserting               
          that if petitioners should prevail in their position that the               
          cattle-raising and deer operations were activities engaged in for           
          profit, then deficiencies would still be due, but in lesser                 
          amounts, for the years in issue as a result of petitioners’                 
          misclassification of the labor and fuel costs.  Petitioners                 
          apparently do not dispute respondent’s assertion in this regard.            
          In any event, in view of our holding that petitioners’ Schedule F           
          activities were not activities engaged in for profit, this matter           
          goes by the wayside.                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011