F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 4 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CARL D. UNDERWOOD;
DOLORES A. UNDERWOOD,
Petitioners-Appellants,
Nos. 99-9015 & 99-9016
v. (T.C. Nos. 1356-89 & 37159-86)
(Petition for Review)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
In these consolidated cases, petitioners appeal from the Tax Court’s
decision that they owed deficiencies for the taxable years 1979, 1981 and 1982.
The deficiency determinations were based on the Commissioner’s disallowance of
deductions claimed by petitioners arising out of investments in oil and gas limited
partnerships.
On review, petitioners present one argument: the Tax Court erred in
finding that the profit motive is properly determined at the partnership level.
They maintain that the individual partner’s profit motive is the relevant inquiry
under 26 U.S.C. § 183 and the applicable regulations.
We review this legal question of statutory interpretation de novo. See True
Oil Co. v. Commissioner , 170 F.3d 1294, 1298 (10th Cir. 1999). We have held
that in determining whether activities were engaged in for profit for purposes of
26 U.S.C. § 183, “we look to the economic motive of the partnership, not the
individual investor.” Hildebrand v. Commissioner , 28 F.3d 1024, 1027 (10th Cir.
1994) (citing Cannon v. Commissioner , 949 F.2d 345, 349 (10th Cir. 1991)). This
panel cannot overturn the decision of another panel of this court. See United
States v. Nichols , 169 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 120 S. Ct. 336
-2-
(1999) . Consequently, petitioners’ argument against established law in this
circuit must fail. The petition for review of the Tax Court’s decision is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-