- 6 -
facts and circumstances of the case in issue remain the primary
test. Id.
In determining whether petitioner was engaged as a tutor and
as an editor with the requisite intent to make a profit, all of
the facts and circumstances of his situation must be taken into
account. Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd.
without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981); sec.
1.183-2(a) and (b), Income Tax Regs. No single factor is
controlling, nor is the existence of a majority of factors
favoring or disfavoring a profit objective necessarily
controlling. Hendricks v. Commissioner, 32 F.3d 94, 98 (4th Cir.
1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-396; sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax
Regs.
Petitioner generally bears the burden of proof with respect
to this determination. Rule 142(a); Golanty v. Commissioner,
supra at 426; McCarthy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-135.
Petitioner does not argue the applicability of section 7491(a),
and the record reflects that section 7491(a) does not apply.
Petitioner contends that he was engaged for profit as both a
tutor and an editor.
Petitioner’s deductions with respect to each of the alleged
activities consisted of unsubstantiated and unwarranted
deductions and personal expenses. For example, petitioner used
the Schedules C to claim inflated deductions for expenses, such
as mortgage interest on petitioners’ personal residence.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011