-16-
petitioners failed to introduce any evidence that they consulted
any other sources before beginning the lemon farming activity.
After they began the lemon farming activity, petitioners
consulted an expert, a supervising plant pathologist, only once.
Petitioners also intentionally took measures that they knew
would harm their trees, such as harvesting lemons too early. Mr.
Bangs was impatient and wanted to test how the market worked,
although he knew it could harm the trees. There is also no
evidence that petitioners took any action to correct the poor
soil quality or did anything to overcome the water retention
problem noted by the supervising plant pathologist in 1997.
We also found petitioners’ testimony regarding the time and
effort they spent on the lemon farming activity not credible.
See sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs. Mr. Bangs testified
that he spent 60 to 80 hours per week, and petitioners together
spent 80 to 90 hours per week on the lemon farming activity.
Petitioners were engaged in many pursuits during the years at
issue, not the least of which was a profitable rental real estate
and investment activity. It is difficult to imagine how anyone
would spend 80 to 90 hours per week caring for an undetermined
number of lemon trees, some of which had died, and give only
secondary attention to the rental real estate and investment
activity that generated significant gross income of approximately
$450,000 annually. Moreover, despite claiming that they spent so
much time and effort on their lemon farming activity during the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011