- 8 -
proving that she conducted her activities with the actual and
honest intent to make a profit. See Purdey v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1989-657, affd. without published opinion 922 F.2d 833 (3d
Cir. 1990).
Although section 7491(a) places the burden of proof on the
Commissioner with regard to certain factual issues involving
examinations commenced after July 22, 1998, which this case was,
petitioner does not assert that section 7491(a) shifts the burden
to respondent. Therefore, the burden of proof remains with
petitioner.
Whether a taxpayer has an actual and honest profit objective
is determined on the basis of all surrounding facts and
circumstances. Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642 (1982),
affd. without published opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983);
sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. We give greater weight to
objective facts than to a taxpayer’s statements of intent.
Dreicer v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
We structure our analysis around nine nonexclusive factors.
Sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. The nine factors are: (1) The
manner in which the taxpayer carried on the activity; (2) the
expertise of the taxpayer or his or her advisers; (3) the time
and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity;
(4) the expectation that the assets used in the activity may
appreciate in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying
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