- 19 -
the water and runs right into the side of a * * *
cruise ship. Bam!
Takes his bill off, knocks himself out, and he’s
just kind of floating on top of the water, flopping.
They backed down on him, just nice and easy, reach over
and get him and put in the boat. $150,000. Boom!
Just that easy, because the fish knocked itself
out. They would have never got him in. We had a
683-pound fish. That’s a * * * fish. But because of
what he had caught that morning and what he caught that
afternoon, their combined weight was more than the
weight of our fish.
They won the daily and the tournament. We came in
second in the tournament, with a trophy fish, 683
pounds. All because this cruise ship just happened, *
* * it just happened to come by as this fish, who is
fearing for his life, is running just as fast as he
can, runs into the side of the boat. * * *
We give petitioners’ uncorroborated testimony little weight
in determining whether PMSI had the requisite profit objective.
Petitioners testified that they had a profit objective as to the
fishing activity. Mr. Peacock, in particular, as a successful
businessperson, showed some appreciation for making a profit. In
determining whether PMSI’s participation in the fishing activity
was permeated with the honest and actual profit objective,
however, we give greater weight to the nine objective factors set
forth above than we do to petitioners’ expressions of subjective
intent. Osteen v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d at 358; Keanini v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 41, 46 (1990); Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78
T.C. at 645; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. We turn to those
factors and discuss them seriatim.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011