- 18 -
Respondent cites several cases where we held that the
taxpayer’s activities could not be aggregated and argues that
those cases are analogous to the facts in this situation. In De
Mendoza v. Commissioner, supra, the Court refused to aggregate
the taxpayer’s farming/polo activity and his real estate law
practice, despite the taxpayer’s position that one reason he
began playing polo was to meet clients for his law firm. Based
on the evidence, the Court concluded that the farm was formed and
operated as a separate business, and the Court was not convinced
that the taxpayer began the polo activity to generate legal
business or that the activity materially benefited the taxpayer’s
law practice. In Wilkinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-39,
we held that a plastic surgeon’s horse ranch activities and his
medical practice were not interrelated business activities,
despite the taxpayer’s claim that the publicity he derived from
playing polo and hosting social gatherings helped him get
patients for his cosmetic surgery practice. Id. In Zdun v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-296, affd. without published
opinion 229 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2000), we held that a dentist’s
organic apple orchard was not part of the same activity as his
holistic dental practice even though the apples were sold to the
dental practice’s patients at the office.
We do not find any of the cases respondent relies on to be
analogous to petitioner’s situation. None of the activities in
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007