- 15 -
earn a profit. Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659, 666-667
(1979); sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner did not present any documentary evidence to prove
the existence of complete and accurate books and records for the
farming activity. Petitioner did not maintain a separate bank
account for the farming activity. Instead, he used one account
for personal use, the farming activity, and for his legal
practice.
Petitioner asserts that because he did not maintain a
separate bank account for his law practice, which petitioner
operated with a profit motive, we should infer a profit motive
from petitioner’s lacking a separate bank account for the farming
activity. We disagree. The lack of a separate bank account for
petitioner’s farming activity, coupled with the lack of complete
and accurate books and records, tends to show that petitioner did
not carry on the farming activity in a businesslike manner. Cf.
Kahle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-203.
Petitioner also had no written business plan, nor offered
any documentary evidence showing he contemplated, before
beginning the farming activity, how to make it profitable.
Petitioner did not advertise the farming activity in an attempt
to increase its profitability. These facts lead us to conclude
that petitioner did not carry on the farming activity in a
businesslike manner. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
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