Dennis L. and Margaret J. Knudsen - Page 33




                                       - 33 -                                         
              This factor favors petitioners’ position.                               
                   4. The Expectation That Assets Used in the Activity                
                        Would Appreciate in Value                                     
              The term “profit” encompasses revenue from operations and               
         appreciation in the value of assets such as land.  Sec. 1.183-               
         2(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.                                                    
               Thus, the taxpayer may intend to derive a profit from                  
               the operation of the activity, and may also intend                     
               that, even if no profit from current operations is                     
               derived, an overall profit will result when                            
               appreciation in the value of land used in the activity                 
               is realized since income from the activity together                    
               with the appreciation of land will exceed expenses of                  
               operation.  * * *  [Id.]                                               
                                                                                     
              Petitioners argue that their expectation of profit is                   
         evidenced by the fact that a gross profit will be produced upon              
         the sale of a third offspring.  This argument is not supported by            
         credible evidence.  For example, petitioners’ depreciation                   
         schedule reflects that they purchased one blue and gold macaw for            
         $750 in 1997.  Yet, in 2000, petitioners sold three blue and gold            
         macaws for $750.                                                             
              Respondent claims that petitioners could not have expected              
         ERE’s assets to appreciate so much in value as to produce an                 
         overall profit because ERE’s current operating expenses each year            
         exceeded its gross receipts by a wide margin.  Respondent points             
         out that petitioners could not realize an overall profit even if             
         ERE’s property appreciated.                                                  








Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008