- 7 - Respondent increased petitioner’s gross income by the amount of petitioner’s farm expenses in each of the years at issue in a deficiency notice dated June 25, 2004 (the deficiency notice). Respondent determined that petitioner did not conduct the farming activity with the intent to earn a profit under section 183(a). Respondent also determined that petitioner’s various undertakings on the family farm were not one activity for purposes of the section 183 analysis. Finally, respondent determined that petitioners were liable for the accuracy-related penalty because petitioners’ underpayments of taxes were due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations. Petitioners timely filed a petition seeking a redetermination of respondent’s determinations in the deficiency notice. OPINION This is the third time that we have been asked to decide whether petitioner conducted the farming activity for profit. We held petitioner did not conduct the farming activity for profit in 1992 and 1993. Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 1998-200. We similarly held that petitioner did not conduct the farming activity for profit in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-269. A. Section 183 Generally Section 183(a) provides generally that if an individual engages in an activity and “if such activity is not engaged inPage: 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