- 13 - Each party cited events that occurred after 1996. We do not consider those events (other than those related to trial preparation) because those events do not show whether petitioners had a profit objective during the years in issue. See Lundquist v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-83 n.1, affd. without published opinion 211 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000); Estate of Brockenbrough v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-454; Gustafson's Dairy, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-519; Choate Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-495; cf. Estate of Hutchinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-55 (events occurring after the date in issue are relevant only if they shed light on the taxpayer's state of mind on the date in issue), affd. 765 F.2d 665 (7th Cir. 1985). B. Applying the Factors 1. Manner in Which the Taxpayer Conducts the Activity Maintaining complete and accurate books and records, conducting the activity in a manner substantially like comparable businesses which are profitable, and making changes in operations to improve profitability suggest that a taxpayer conducted an activity for profit. See Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659, 666-667 (1979); sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. a. Books and Records, Bank Accounts, and Business Plan Respondent contends that petitioners’ books and records were not adequate because they did not keep them for each horse.Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011