Fred Misko, Jr. and Karen L. Howe-Misko - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          explicitly except C corporations, stating that no inference may             
          be drawn from section 183 and its regulations as to whether a               
          corporation is engaged in an activity for profit.  Sec. 1.183-              
          1(a), Income Tax Regs.  The point of amalgamating two                       
          undertakings into a single activity is to net the expenses of one           
          against the revenue of the other, an objective that cannot be               
          accomplished where one undertaking is that of a C corporation and           
          the other is an undertaking by an individual.  Because the law              
          firm was a C corporation, petitioner may not group the law firm             
          with his leasing activity for purposes of section 183.8                     
               B.   Whether the Activity Was Engaged In for Profit                    
               Although we agree with respondent that the leasing activity            
          and the law practice cannot be grouped, we nonetheless find that            
          respondent has failed to meet his burden to show that petitioner            
          did not engage in the leasing activity with the primary purpose             
          to earn a profit.  See Swaffar v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-            
          180 (the Court did not affirmatively find that the taxpayers                
          lacked a profit objective, but rather found only that the                   
          Commissioner failed to prove that the taxpayers lacked a profit             


               8Petitioner also argues that, if we do not group the two               
          undertakings, the law firm’s profit objective still should be               
          attributed to his leasing activity.  See Campbell v.                        
          Commissioner, 868 F.2d 833 (6th Cir. 1989), revg. T.C. Memo.                
          1986-569; Wilkinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-39; De                 
          Mendoza v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-314; Kuhn v.                       
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-460; cf. Baldwin v. Commissioner,             
          T.C. Memo. 2002-162.  We need not resolve this issue.                       





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