- 8 -
decided on the 10-hour figure because “she knew she had all day
to do it” and because Home Depot opened at 7 o’clock.
We do not find petitioners’ calendar or summary to be
persuasive. See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6
T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947). The
summarization in particular appears to be more akin to the
unacceptable ballpark guesstimates we have rejected in the past
than it is to “reasonable means” that would establish that Mrs.
Harmon actually spent 774.5 hours on real estate activities in
2001.
2. More than one-half of the personal services performed in
trades or businesses by the taxpayer
Assuming, arguendo, that we were persuaded by petitioners’
claim that Mrs. Harmon spent 774.5 hours on real estate
activities in 2001, petitioners are still unable to satisfy the
other portion of the test outlined in section 469(c)(7)(B) for
treatment as a real estate professional. According to section
469(c)(7)(B)(i), petitioners have to prove that more than
one-half of Mrs. Harmon’s personal services performed in trades
or businesses in 2001 were performed in real property trades or
businesses. Petitioners are unable to do so.
Petitioners argue that Mrs. Harmon’s other personal service
commitments were sufficiently minimal so as to permit the 774.5
hours she claims to have spent on rental activities to constitute
more than one-half of the personal services she performed in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007