- 11 -
But it is also well established that a genuine profit motive must
exist before an activity constitutes a trade or business. See
Brydia v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 954 (3d Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1970-147; Hirsch v. Commissioner, 315 F.2d 731
(9th Cir. 1963), affg. T.C. Memo. 1961-256; Kurkjian v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 862, 869 (1976).
On an attachment to petitioners’ return, Mr. Sizelove stated
that he was the president of a nonprofit social organization, he
derived no salary from it, and he used a second bedroom as a home
office and to store the club’s artifacts and records.
Mrs. Sizelove testified that Mr. Sizelove never received
compensation from the club.
Mr. Sizelove was not compensated by the club, and
petitioners did not establish that he expected to derive a profit
in his capacity as the club’s president. Therefore, the Court
finds that Mr. Sizelove was not engaged in the trade or business
of being an employee of the club. See Kurkjian v. Commissioner,
supra at 869 (stating that when services are rendered
gratuitously and are motivated by personal and charitable
impulses, the individual is not in the trade or business of being
an employee of the charitable organization). Accordingly,
petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for the business use
of their home since Mr. Sizelove failed to show that a portion of
his residence was exclusively used on a regular basis as his
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008