-19-
organizational and economic relationship; (b) whether the
undertakings are conducted at the same place; (c) whether the
undertakings were part of a taxpayer’s efforts to find sources of
revenue from his or her land; (d) whether the undertakings were
formed as separate businesses; (e) whether one undertaking
benefited from the other; (f) whether the taxpayer used one
undertaking to advertise the other; (g) the degree to which the
undertakings shared management; (h) the degree to which one
caretaker oversaw the assets of both undertakings; (i) whether
the taxpayers used the same accountant for the undertakings; and
(j) the degree to which the undertakings shared books and
records. See Keanini v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 41, 46 (1990);
Estate of Brockenbrough v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-454.
We find that it is inappropriate to treat CFI and BHJ as one
activity for purposes of applying section 183. CFI and BHJ did
not share a close organizational or economic relationship. CFI
was an S corporation, while BHJ was a sole proprietorship.
Although the ownership of CFI and BHJ was the same and Mr.
Rabinowitz managed both CFI and BHJ, there was no other
organizational relationship between CFI and BHJ. CFI and BHJ
also did not have a close economic relationship. CFI was a
charter customer of BHJ, as were numerous other third parties.
CFI and BHJ also were not similar activities. CFI was
engaged in the design and distribution of women’s apparel, while
BHJ was a jet charter service. Petitioners had a business
purpose for treating CFI and BHJ as separate entities.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011