- 13 -
that an absence of substantial income to the taxpayer from other
sources may indicate a profit motive, while the presence of other
substantial income may indicate a lack of profit motive. This is
particularly true if the activity has personal or recreational
elements. This factor does weigh against petitioner, as his
primary income is from his teaching position, and allowing his
playwriting deductions would largely offset his teaching wages.
The ninth factor is whether there are elements of personal
pleasure or recreation present in the activity. Sec. 1.183-
2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs. Clearly playwriting is something
petitioner enjoys. Nevertheless, pleasure is not irreconcilable
with a profit motive. Schwartz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-
86.
Considering these factors together, we find that petitioner
has carried on his playwriting with the objective of making a
profit: both the documentary and testimonial evidence show
petitioner’s goal was not merely posthumous renown but profit in
the here-and-now. Section 183 does not therefore limit his
deductions. Professor Calarco is a playwright, not a pisher.
See Kozinski & Volokh, supra, 103 Yale L.J. at 465 n.14.
B. Has Petitioner Substantiated His Expenses?
All taxpayers, even playwrights, are allowed to deduct the
ordinary trade or business expenses they incur during the year.
Sec. 162(a). But this often leads to temptation. Our
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011