- 5 -
manner in which the taxpayer carries on the activity; (2) the
expertise of the taxpayer or his advisers; (3) the time and
effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity; (4)
the expectation that assets used in the activity may appreciate
in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying on similar
or dissimilar activities; (6) the history of income or losses
with respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional
profit, if any; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer; and (9)
any elements of personal pleasure or recreation. No single
factor, nor simple numerical majority of factors, is controlling.
See Cannon v. Commissioner, 949 F.2d 345, 350 (10th Cir. 1991),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-148.
Petitioner presented little evidence concerning many of the
factors contained in the regulations. We, therefore, focus on
the factors that form our decision.
What concerns us most is the history of losses. While a
person may start with a bona fide expectation of profit, even if
it is unreasonable, there is a time when, in light of the
recurring losses, the bona fides of that expectation must cease.
See Filios v. Commissioner, 224 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2000), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1999-92. This is particularly pertinent here where
petitioner could not estimate when the activity might become
profitable. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011