Lucian T. Baldwin, III - Page 54




                                        - 54 -                                        
          corporation that is operated for the pleasure or recreation of              
          its shareholders is not engaged in a trade or business.  Intl.              
          Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 275 F.2d 578, 584 (7th Cir. 1960),             
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1958-104.                                                  
               The extensive personal use of BAC’s aircraft by petitioner             
          and his family, friends, and business acquaintances, coupled with           
          petitioner’s failure to prove a legitimate economic connection              
          between his successful commodity trading business and BAC,                  
          convinces us that BAC’s air transportation activity was not an              
          activity engaged in for profit.                                             
                    3.   Conclusion                                                   
               After considering the factors listed in section 1.183-2(b),            
          Income Tax Regs., we hold that BAC was not engaged in an activity           
          for profit.  We decline to address respondent’s other arguments             
          with respect to the BAC adjustments because our conclusion under            
          section 183 adequately disposes of respondent’s adjustments with            
          respect to BAC.24                                                           






               24Pursuant to sec. 183(b), respondent has allowed petitioner           
          additional miscellaneous itemized deductions for BAC’s expenses             
          in amounts equal to BAC’s corrected S corporation income in each            
          of the years in dispute (before application of the 2-percent                
          adjusted gross income limitation of sec. 67).  Consequently, we             
          do not separately address the parties’ arguments regarding the              
          calculation of BAC’s depreciation deduction under sec. 280F or              
          the ownership of the Cessna that was depreciated by BAC.                    





Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011