- 6 - preretirement expertise. Other than the $7,710 consulting fee earned during 1991, petitioner had no active income-producing consulting engagements. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987). Even if we were to find that petitioner’s consulting activity reached the level of being a trade or business or other profit-seeking activity, we are unconvinced that petitioners’ involvement in their daughter’s domestic relations difficulties was an integral part of petitioner’s consulting activity. Although petitioner studied domestic relations law and related matters, he is not a lawyer and not entitled to represent the interests of another. In that regard, there was no potential for profit from “investing” in a divorce or child custody proceeding. Petitioners’ assistance to their daughter is commendable, but it is in origin and character a personal matter. Petitioner spent a great deal of effort in researching domestic relations law and assisting his daughter, but that alone does not make his activity one that is profit seeking. We also note that petitioner entered into an agreement with his daughter. Under that agreement, petitioner would be reimbursed for his expenditures pro rata, using the ratio of his expenditures to his daughter’s. Once their expenditures were reimbursed, then petitioner was to receive 30 percent and his daughter 70 percent of any recovery that exceeded the cost of the domestic relationsPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011