Csaba L. Magassy and Frances H. Magassy - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         
          asking price of only $2.4 million, an amount well below the $3.5            
          million petitioner had already invested in the Feadship.                    

          Opportunity for Profits From the Activity                                   
               The opportunity to earn substantial profits in a speculative           
          venture may indicate that an activity is engaged in for profit              
          even though losses or only occasional small profits actually                
          result.  Sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income Tax Regs.                               
               Regardless of any profit objective petitioner initially in             
          1990 may have had when he purchased the Feadship, the $3.5                  
          million that petitioner incurred in costs by 1995 far exceeded              
          the $2.4 million asking price for the Feadship (indicating an               
          expected loss on the sale), and petitioner had no reasonable                
          basis for expecting a profit from SMSM’s charter of the Feadship,           
          which petitioner at trial acknowledged was conducted for the                
          purpose of offsetting costs of maintaining the Feadship while it            
          was listed for sale.                                                        

          Expectation That Assets May Appreciate                                      
               An expectation that assets used in an activity may                     
          appreciate in value may indicate a profit objective.  Golanty v.            
          Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 427-428; Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45             
          T.C. 261, 274 (1965); sec. 1.183-2(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.                  
          Generally, however, an expectation that assets “may appreciate is           
          not sufficient, in itself, to demonstrate that an activity was              
          engaged in for profit.”  Hendricks v. Commissioner, supra at 100.           






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011