- 7 -
to petitioner wife’s father, who lived on the land and farmed it.
Petitioner further testified that his father-in-law did not pay
rent, instead paying taxes in exchange for the right to occupy
the land. Petitioner stated that the car and truck expenses
which were listed on the Schedule C for this activity were put
there in error, and that the expenses should have been listed on
the mental health services Schedule C instead. Petitioners did
not explain the only other expense on this Schedule C, the
mortgage expense, nor did they explain how this activity could
have been operated for a profit when the lessee was not required
to pay rent. Petitioners produced no evidence supporting a
finding of a profit objective in this activity with respect to
the above-mentioned factors. We therefore find that petitioners
have not met their burden of proving respondent’s determinations
to be in error, see Rule 142(a),3 and we sustain respondent’s
determination with respect to the rental activity.
We now turn to the remaining two activities, both of which
are related to the mental health field. Petitioners’ testimony
and arguments concerning these activities can be summarized as
follows: During each of the years in issue, petitioner was
involved in an activity in which he sold videotapes related to
3Sec. 7491(a) does not shift the burden of proof to
respondent in this case because petitioners have provided no
credible evidence supporting a profit objective with respect to
the rental activity. Sec. 7491(a)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011