- 23 -
one’s activity does not preclude a finding that the activity was
engaged in primarily for profit, but it must be considered along
with all the other facts.
Conclusion
Petitioner may have hoped to make a profit from his horse
activity. However, in order to prevail, petitioner must show
that his activity was engaged in primarily for the purpose of
making a profit. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23,
35 (1987); Hayden v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 1548, 1552 (6th Cir.
1989); Godfrey v. Commissioner, 335 F.2d 82, 84 (6th Cir. 1964);
Warden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-176. Based on
petitioner’s testimony, his long and consistent history of
reporting losses without ever developing a business plan or
detailed break-even analysis, and the manner in which he
conducted his activity, we find that petitioner has not
established that making a profit was his primary objective.
We hold that petitioner’s activity was not engaged in for
profit within the meaning of section 183(c). Petitioner’s
deductions of the losses associated with these activities are,
therefore, subject to the limitations set forth in section
183(b).
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011