- 10 -
and timber activity with the requisite intent to make a profit,
all of the facts and circumstances of his situation must be taken
into account. Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979),
affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981);
sec. 1.183-2(a) and (b), Income Tax Regs. No single factor is
controlling, nor is the existence of a majority of factors
favoring or disfavoring a profit objective necessarily
controlling. Hendricks v. Commissioner, 32 F.3d 94, 98 (4th Cir.
1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-396; sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax
Regs.
We first consider the manner in which the taxpayer carries
on the activity. In this case, petitioner never had a written
business plan. He did not separate the expenses between the
apple and timber portions of the activity. Petitioner did not
prepare budgets with respect to the activity. We have no
evidence regarding the number of trees petitioner planted, the
cost of such trees, or the condition of the trees. Petitioner
did not carry on the activity in a businesslike manner.
We consider the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisers.
Petitioner does not appear to have any previous farming
experience. Petitioner said that he became involved in the farm
activity because he was interested in preserving old varieties of
apple trees. It was a local wood cutter who suggested that
petitioner could sell his timber. Prior to starting the apple
and timber activity, petitioner did not consult any experts in
this activity. Petitioner later consulted with outside
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011