- 16 -
Petitioner’s letters to the bank, however, leave some unanswered
questions regarding those assertions.
We also are unable to conclude, for the purpose of the
instant motion, that the horse breeding activity was a trade or
business. To be engaged in a trade or business within the
meaning of section 162, “the taxpayer’s primary purpose for
engaging in the activity must be for income or profit.”
Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987). We
generally consider nine nonexclusive factors in deciding whether
a taxpayer has maintained the requisite profit motive. Dreicer
v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 644 (1982), affd. without opinion
702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983); sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.
If petitioner is correct that he conducted the activity in a
businesslike manner and used expert advisers, such factors would
tend to indicate a profit motive. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1) and (2),
Income Tax Regs. However, the activity’s history of losses and
petitioner’s financial status are factors that weigh against
petitioner. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), (8), Income Tax Regs.
Additionally, there are several remaining factors that are not
addressed in the pleadings and other materials submitted by the
parties.
We also note that respondent’s failure to disallow losses
from the activity in prior years does not establish that it was a
trade or business in 1995. Each taxable year stands on its own,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007