Rhett Rance Smith and Alice Avila Smith, et al. - Page 53




                                        - 53 -                                        
          maintains complete and accurate books and records may indicate a            
          profit objective.  Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.                     
               Essentially, Rance’s only record of his activity was a bank            
          account that, for early years, was not segregated from his                  
          personal checking account.  No other records were produced with             
          respect to his cutting horse activity.   No records corroborating           
          his testimony were produced to show the horses purchased or their           
          progress and profitability.  In particular, no formal business              
          plan, budgets, operating statements, or analysis was produced to            
          show the financial management or planning of the activity.                  
          Although Rance testified that he had detailed written business              
          plans broken down by horse, such plans were not offered into                
          evidence, and little detail of the plans was described in the               
          testimony.6                                                                 
               At trial, Rance was unable to provide detail about the                 
          collective deductions claimed on the Schedules F.  The returns              
          were prepared by Mr. Kramer, who used the checkbook to prepare              
          the Schedules F.  Someone with the intent to make a profit from             
          cutting horses could be expected to have adequate information               


               6 Petitioners attempted to address their failure to present            
          detailed evidence by contending that respondent did not question            
          the substantiation or underlying records during the audit                   
          examination.  That, however, does not relieve them of the burden            
          of showing that they met the requirements of sec. 183.  They also           
          attempted to parlay that same contention into a situation where             
          the burden of proof would be shifted to respondent under sec.               
          7491(a).  We found that attempt to be untimely and in other                 
          respects ill conceived.                                                     





Page:  Previous  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008