- 18 -
support any of these claims. The time she claims to have spent
conducting her horse activity is not inconsistent with the amount
of time one might expect from someone conducting a horse activity
as a hobby during the process of retirement. This factor is
neutral in the determination of whether petitioner had a profit
objective.
4. Expectation that assets used in activity may
appreciate in value.
Petitioner provided no evidence as to the value of her
horses in 1993 nor any evidence showing that her horses were
expected to appreciate in value. Petitioner claimed that Defy,
the gelding she purchased in 1993, would have been worth
approximately $20,000 if he had “hit”. Petitioner introduced no
evidence to support this assertion. Petitioner eventually sold
Defy for his acquisition price. Defy did not appreciate in
value, and petitioner did not recoup any money she spent for his
upkeep. This factor does not support petitioner’s claim of
profit objective.
5. The success of the taxpayer in carrying on other
similar or dissimilar activities.
Petitioner is an attorney, with an active and profitable law
practice, Joyce Hastings, Attorney at Law. Petitioner’s law
practice is not similar to her horse activity. Petitioner’s
experiences in law practice simply do not translate meaningfully
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011