William Herbert Whitehurst, III and Carla Cherlene Whitehurst - Page 14




                                       - 13 -                                         
          activity is not sufficient to cause the activity to be classified           
          as not engaged in for profit.  Id.                                          
               Mrs. Whitehurst has been an avid bowler nearly all of her              
          life.  During the years at issue and at the time of trial she was           
          a member of a bowling league, and she bowled with her family.               
          Mrs. Whitehurst testified that the bowling tournaments were long,           
          tiring, and difficult, but not pleasurable, and that driving to             
          tournaments in Florida was especially difficult.  Although we               
          recognize that driving long hours to a bowling tournament is an             
          arduous task, we are not convinced that Mrs. Whitehurst does not            
          derive personal pleasure from or recreation in bowling.  The                
          personal pleasure or recreation that she derives from the bowling           
          activity, however, is not sufficient to cause the bowling                   
          activity to be classified as not engaged in for profit.  See id.            
          Therefore, this factor is neutral.                                          
               Having considered the above factors and recognizing that no            
          one factor is controlling, we conclude that Mrs. Whitehurst                 
          entered into the bowling activity with a profit objective and               
          thus hold for petitioners on this issue.  See Engdahl v.                    
          Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659, 671 (1979).                                      
          Issue 2.  Expense Deductions                                                
               We now consider respondent’s alternative position that                 
          petitioners are not entitled to certain claimed Schedule C                  
          expenses related to the bowling activity.  We will consider the             






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011