- 7 -
of petitioner’s other income, argues that petitioner’s claim of a
profit motive for his playwriting is pretextual.14
Section 183 disallows deductions for an activity not engaged
in for profit, except to the extent it produces income.
Regulations exist that list a number of factors for us to
consider in deciding whether a taxpayer was seeking to make a
profit. Sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. These factors are not
exclusive, and we do not decide the issue on the basis of a
single factor or a mathematical preponderance of factors. Holmes
v. Commissioner, 184 F.3d 536, 544 (6th Cir. 1999), revg. on
other grounds; Osteen v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 356, 358 (11th
Cir. 1995), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1997-401;
Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd. without
opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
This Court has previously recognized that artists must be
judged with an eye to posterity. In Churchman v. Commissioner,
68 T.C. 696 (1977), we allowed deductions claimed by a sculptor
14 A celebrated monologist has related that his own tax
trouble prompted a former IRS Commissioner to suggest a more
colloquial characterization. “[Y]ou know what a pisher is? A
pisher is a guy who feels entitled to all of the benefits of
civilization, but feels no obligation to pay his fair share.”
Kornbluth, supra (quoting S. Cohen). See generally Kozinski and
Volokh, Lawsuit, Schmawsuit, 103 Yale L.J. 463 (1993) (describing
use of Yiddish to “add spice” to legal opinions, noting
prevalence of chutzpah in much litigation); and see specifically
id. at 463 n.4 (suggesting schnorrer as more appropriate
characterization).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011