John A. Rowe and Donna L. Rowe - Page 46




                                       - 46 -                                         
          elements of personal pleasure or recreation involved.  Sec.                 
          1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.  No single factor is controlling.              
          Osteen v. Commissioner, supra at 358; 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.  The factors are relevant in              
          the context of this case to the extent they may indicate whether            
          petitioner knew or believed that Mr. Rowe was or was not engaged            
          in the farming activity for profit.  See King v. Commissioner,              
          supra at 205.                                                               
               Respondent argues that petitioner knew that the farming                
          activity was not engaged in for profit.  Respondent bases his               
          argument on petitioner’s testimony that the horse activity was a            
          fun thing for Mr. Rowe to do with his son on the weekends and               
          that petitioner did not consider the activity an “operation” but            
          rather her husband just “had a couple of horses in Tampa”.                  
          Respondent contends that petitioner understood that the horse               
          activity was a fun family recreational activity, and this                   
          understanding establishes that she had actual knowledge that the            
          horse activity was not engaged in for profit.  Additionally,                
          respondent claims that petitioner had actual knowledge of both              
          the horse and fish activities, as well as actual knowledge of the           
          claimed Schedule F losses.                                                  
               As we noted earlier, petitioner had little or no involvement           
          in the farming activity.  Additionally, she testified that she              






Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011