Kenneth J. Nissley and Terri C. Connor Nissley - Page 15

                                               - 15 -                                                  

            years.”  Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 261, 274 (1965),                               
            affd. 379 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1967).  In the present case, there is                          
            no persuasive evidence that petitioners will enjoy “future net                             
            earnings”, much less that petitioners will be able to recoup the                           
            substantial losses ($187,754 through 1998) “which have meanwhile                           
            been sustained”.                                                                           
                  Second, we are not convinced that petitioners conducted                              
            their Amway activity in a businesslike manner.  See sec. 1.183-                            
            2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.  Although petitioners may have                                   
            maintained a separate bank account and records for their Amway                             
            activity, such bank account and records appear to have been                                
            maintained principally to satisfy substantiation requirements                              
            imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and thus to “guarantee” the                           
            deductibility of expenses.  In contrast, such bank account and                             
            records do not appear to have been used as analytic or diagnostic                          
            tools in an effort to achieve profitability of petitioners’ Amway                          
            activity.  As we have previously stated:                                                   
                  the keeping of books and records may represent nothing                               
                  more than a conscious attention to detail.  In this                                  
                  case, there has been no showing that books and records                               
                  were kept for the purpose of cutting expenses,                                       
                  increasing profits, and evaluating the overall                                       
                  performance of the operation.  The petitioner reviewed                               
                  her records, but she has failed to show that she used                                
                  them to improve the operation of the enterprise.                                     
                  [Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 430.]                                             
                  Moreover, petitioners did not maintain certain types of                              
            records, nor did petitioners employ certain elementary business                            

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011