- 11 -
activity for purposes of section 183.8 The Court acknowledged in
that case:
The treasure hunting activity was different from
petitioner’s other businesses. Different record keeping
methods are therefore expected, and lack of record keeping
is not determinative of intent. Treasure hunting is not the
type of business where thorough records of gains and losses
are necessary to a successful operation. Cf. Farrell v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-542. This type of activity is
likely to generate only expenditures with no income until a
find is made at which time the income will come in one lump
sum. Therefore, we find that * * * contemporaneous
handwritten lists of expenses were sufficient records for
this type of activity.
In this case, petitioner did not maintain any
contemporaneous written record of the timing, location, and
amount of gold he recovered. He stored his gold in vials that
would hold only specified amounts. While the vials could provide
some visual indication of the amount of gold on hand, they were
kept buried in ammunition boxes under water at dredging sites,
making regular visual inventory difficult. He maintained no
records of the gold so stored. Such a practice, while
permissible, is hardly businesslike. In addition, when
petitioner sold small amounts of gold, he kept no receipts.
Petitioner did maintain some written records of his
expenses, although not in an organized or systematic way and not
8 In Harrison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-509, the
Court treated the taxpayer’s gold mining and treasure salvaging
operations as one activity for purposes of sec. 183.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011