- 13 -
activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or losses with
respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if
any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer;
and (9) any elements indicating personal pleasure or recreation.
See sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.
No single factor, nor even the existence of a majority of
factors favoring or disfavoring the existence of a profit
objective, is controlling. See id. Rather, the relevant facts
and circumstances of the case are determinative. See Golanty v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd. without published
opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981).
Based on all of the facts and circumstances in the present
case, we hold that petitioners have failed to prove that they
engaged in their Amway activity for profit within the meaning of
section 183. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra; Welch v. Helvering, supra; Elliott v. Commissioner, supra.
We will not analyze in depth all 9 of the factors enumerated
in the regulation but rather focus on some of the more important
ones that inform our decision.
First, the history of consistent and substantial losses
incurred by petitioners in their Amway activity is indicative of
a lack of profit objective. See Golanty v. Commissioner, supra
at 427; sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs. Since the inception
of their Amway activity in mid-1991, petitioners have never
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011