- 12 -
OPINION
A. Whether Petitioners Operated Their Horse Activity for Profit
The parties dispute whether petitioners operated their horse
breeding and boarding activity for profit in 1995 and 1996.1 In
deciding whether petitioners operated their horse activity for
profit, we consider the following nine factors: (1) The manner
in which the taxpayer carried on the activity; (2) the expertise
of the taxpayer or his or her advisers; (3) the time and effort
expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity; (4) the
expectation that the assets used in the activity may appreciate
in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying on other
similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of
income or loss 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) whether elements of personal
pleasure or recreation are involved. See sec. 1.183-2(b), Income
Tax Regs. No single factor controls. See Osteen v.
Commissioner, 62 F.3d 356, 358 (11th Cir. 1995), affg. in part
and revg. on other issues T.C. Memo. 1993-519; Brannen v.
Commissioner, 722 F.2d 695, 704 (11th Cir. 1984), affg. 78 T.C.
471 (1982); sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.
1 Respondent contends that petitioners’ farming and horse
breeding were separate activities. Petitioners do not respond to
respondent’s contention. Thus, we treat them as separate
activities.
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