- 24 -
appears from the record that petitioner did not maintain a
general ledger or appropriate accounting journals, nor did he
have financial statements, profit and loss projections, budgets,
break-even analyses, marketing surveys, or other books and
records of the type that would have permitted him to periodically
monitor the financial condition of his mining operation.
Moreover, petitioner has made no showing that he used the books
and records that he did maintain for the purpose of “cutting
expenses, increasing profits, and evaluating the overall
performance of the operation.” Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at
430; see also Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-367
(generally no profit motive where lack of evidence that taxpayer
used records to improve losing venture), affd. without published
opinion 202 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 1999).
Petitioner did produce evidence that he submitted a mining
plan of operations that was approved by the BLM on January 12,
1993. This plan of operations, however, was not a financial plan
to monitor the profitability of petitioner’s mining operation.
Rather, the plan of operations was an operational plan required
by law if a claimant wishes to disturb more than 2 acres of land
per year on his claims. Thus, the plan of operations is not
evidence that petitioner kept businesslike financial records.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011