- 11 -
at a loss since it began in 1992, the presumption does not apply
in this case.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an
appeal in this case would lie, has held that, for a deduction to
be allowed under section 162 or section 212(1) or (2), a taxpayer
must establish that he engaged in the activity with the primary,
predominant, or principal purpose and intent of realizing an
economic profit independent of tax savings. Wolf v.
Commissioner, 4 F.3d 709, 713 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo.
1991-212; Indep. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Commissioner, 781 F.2d
724, 726 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. Lahr v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1984-472; see Prieto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-266, affd.
59 Fed. Appx. 999 (9th Cir. 2003). The taxpayer’s expectation
need not be a reasonable one, but the profit objective must be
bona fide. Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 425-426; sec.
1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. In determining whether the
requisite intention to make a profit exists, greater weight is to
be given to the objective facts than to the taxpayer’s self-
serving characterization of his intent. Indep. Elec. Supply,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 726; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax
Regs.
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., sets forth a
nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining
whether the taxpayer has the requisite profit objective. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011