- 9 -
Commissioner, 908 F.2d 369, 373 (8th Cir. 1990), revg. T.C. Memo.
1988-468; Antonides v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 686, 693-694 (1988),
affd. 893 F.2d 656 (4th Cir. 1990); Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78
T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd. without opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C.
Cir. 1983).
The expectation of profit need not have been reasonable.
The taxpayer must have entered into the activity or continued it,
however, with the profit motive. Hulter v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
371, 393 (1988); sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. Whether a
taxpayer has the requisite profit motive is determined on the
basis of all surrounding facts and circumstances. Dreicer v.
Commissioner, supra at 645; sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.
We give greater weight to objective facts than to a taxpayer’s
statements of intent. Dreicer v. Commissioner, supra at 645;
sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
Before we address whether petitioner had the requisite
profit motive based on the facts and circumstances, we first must
address two threshold issues. First, whether petitioner’s tree
planting, mature timber harvesting, and haying undertakings may
be treated as one activity. Second, whether petitioner is
entitled to the presumption of a profit motive.
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