MEYER v. COMMISSIONER

T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-157

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

KARL MEYER AND VICKIE MEYER, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 7403-00S. Filed September 26, 2001.

Karl Meyer and Vickie Meyer, pro sese.

R. Scott Shieldes, for respondent.

ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time that the petition was filed.1 The decision to

be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.

1
Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1997,
the taxable year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
 - 2 -

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal

income tax for the taxable year 1997 in the amount of $3,612.

After a concession by respondent,2 the sole issue for

decision is whether petitioners engaged in an Amway activity for

profit within the meaning of section 183.

Background3

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.

Petitioners are husband and wife and have been married since

1992. They resided in Houston, Texas, at the time that their

petition was filed with the Court.

A. Petitioner Husband

Petitioner husband (Mr. Meyer) is, by profession, a salesman

of medical equipment and has been employed by Xomed, Inc. (Xomed)

for approximately 15 years. Xomed specializes in the production

of medical equipment for use by health care providers who

practice in the ear, nose, and throat area. As a salesman for

Xomed, Mr. Meyer typically contacts doctors and nurses within an

2
At trial, respondent conceded that petitioners are
entitled to the Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, deduction for
unreimbursed employee business expenses (incurred by petitioner
Karl Meyer in the course of his employment as a salesman for
Xomed, Inc.) as claimed by petitioners on their return for the
year in issue.
3
At trial, we deferred ruling on respondent’s relevancy
objection to petitioners’ Exhibit 23-P, a collection of business
articles. We now overrule that objection and admit the exhibit
into evidence.
 - 3 -

assigned geographical territory in Texas for the purpose of

demonstrating and selling Xomed’s products.

Mr. Meyer is compensated by Xomed on a straight commission

basis, and he is precluded by his employer from participating in

other for-profit sales activities. His compensation for 1994

through 1999 was $80,114, $83,403, $116,186, $97,329, $140,008,

and $149,610, respectively.

B. Petitioner Wife

Petitioner wife (Mrs. Meyer) is a homemaker and mother of

three children: Alexandra, born in July 1989; Jeffrey, born in

August 1993; and Andrea, born in March 1995.

In 1985, Mrs. Meyer filed an assumed name certificate with

the Harris County (Houston, Texas) Clerk’s Office, adopting the

business name of Vickie Zozaya Enterprises. However, Mrs. Meyer

never conducted any type of activity with respect to this

enterprise.

In 1994, Mrs. Meyer began designing and making jewelry pins

and selling them at craft shows under the assumed name of

Trinkets, Etc. Less than a year thereafter, Mrs. Meyer ceased to

operate Trinkets, Etc. because its time-consuming nature and lack

of profitability did not allow Mrs. Meyer to properly care for

her children. Petitioners’ income tax return for 1994 included a

Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, claiming a net loss of

$188 (i.e, gross income of $247 less car expenses of $435) from
 - 4 -

Trinkets, Etc.

C. Amway

In August 1994, petitioners began to operate an Amway

distributorship under the name of Meyer Enterprises. Petitioners

began the Amway activity after being recruited as “downline”

distributors by an “upline” distributor.

Amway is a supplier of household and personal use products

that are sold by individuals (distributors) through direct

marketing. An Amway distributor purchases Amway products for

resale to both customers and “downline” distributors, as well as

for personal use.

At least in theory, Amway distributors generate receipts by

selling Amway products directly to customers and by recruiting

new distributors. The new recruits become “downline”

distributors of the sponsoring distributor and a part of his or

her organization.4 In turn, each “downline” distributor is

encouraged to sponsor additional new distributors, all of whom

become a part of the initial distributor’s organization.5 Amway

does not assign exclusive geographical territories to any

distributor, nor does Amway impose a minimum sales quota on any

distributor.

4
The sponsoring distributor is referred to as the “upline”
distributor.
5
The process of recruiting new distributors is often
referred to as “building the legs” of a distributor's network.
 - 5 -

Amway maintains a “pyramid” incentive system. Under this

system, an “upline” distributor receives a bonus based on the

volume of sales generated by his or her “downline” distributors.6

Thus, the system presumes that the “upline” distributor’s

potential for profit will increase as his or her network of

“downline” distributors becomes wider and deeper.7

Because the “upline” distributor’s bonus is based on the

volume of sales generated by “downline” distributors, such bonus

is not directly affected by a “downline” distributor’s

profitability or lack of profitability.

The Amway “pyramid” incentive system is promoted by Amway in

the form of the “9-4-2 plan”.8 Under the “9-4-2 plan”, each

Amway distributor is encouraged to personally recruit 9

“downline” distributors, each of whom in turn is encouraged to

recruit at least 4 “downline” distributors, each of whom in turn

is encouraged to recruit at least 2 “downline” distributors (for

6
The “upline” distributor’s bonus is also based on the
volume of sales generated by the “upline” distributor himself or
herself. However, the volume of such sales is generally minimal,
and the portion of the bonus attributable to such sales is
negligible.
7
The “width” of a network refers to the number of
“downline” distributors that are personally sponsored by the
distributor in question, and “length” refers to the number of
“downline” distributors that make up each “leg” of the network.
8
More typically, the Amway system is promoted in the form
of the “6-4-2 plan”. See Nissley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-178. The two plans are identical, except for the number of
first-tier “downline” distributors.
 - 6 -

a total of 117 “downline” distributors in the initial

distributor’s organization). The “9-4-2 plan” is promoted as the

theoretical break-even point for a distributorship, assuming that

(1) the distributor and each “downline” distributor within the

distributor’s organization purchases $200 of Amway products per

month and that (2) the distributor does not have expenses

exceeding $2,000 per month. At least in theory, the potential

for profit is enhanced as each of the 117 “downline” distributors

in the distributor’s network successfully implements the “9-4-2

plan”.

The Amway “9-4-2 plan” does not provide meaningful guidance

to distributors regarding how expenses incurred in pursuing an

Amway activity may be reduced.

The structure of the Amway “pyramid” incentive system

effectively serves to discourage distributors from spending their

time personally trying to sell Amway products. In contrast, the

system effectively serves to encourage distributors to spend

their time trying to recruit an ever-increasing number of

“downline” distributors.

Amway distributors are entitled to purchase Amway products

for their personal use at distributor’s cost without the

customary percentage markup.9

9
Although the record is not crystal clear, it would appear
that 30 percent was the customary markup.
 - 7 -

D. Nature of Petitioners’ Amway Activity

At the time that they were recruited as Amway distributors

in August 1994, petitioners had no prior experience with Amway or

an Amway type activity.

Other than accepting the Amway “9-4-2 plan”, petitioners

never developed a business plan for their Amway activity, nor did

they ever prepare profit projections or undertake any type of

market analysis. Although petitioners maintained a monthly

report of expenses incurred in pursing their activity, they never

prepared a break-even analysis nor a formal budget.

Despite their lack of experience with either Amway or an

Amway type activity, petitioners never sought meaningful counsel

from disinterested third parties. Rather, petitioners relied

principally on advice from “upline” distributors and other

interested Amway individuals.

Petitioners spent little time personally trying to sell

Amway products. Indeed, from February through September 1997, no

retail sales were made. Rather, petitioners concentrated on

trying to recruit, and retain, “downline” distributors. Gross

income received by petitioners consisted principally of bonuses

earned from the sale, or personal consumption, of Amway products

by “downline” distributors.
 - 8 -

E. Petitioners’ Separation and Its Effect on the Amway
Activity

Upon becoming Amway distributors in August 1994, petitioners

assigned themselves different roles. Because Mrs. Meyer had

virtually no time to spend operating a business outside the home

due to parental obligations, and because of Mr. Meyer’s

experience as a salesman, the task of operating the Amway

activity was initially assumed by Mr. Meyer. Indeed, on their

income tax returns, petitioners identified Mr. Meyer as

“proprietor” of the distributorship.

In contrast, Mrs. Meyer assumed responsibility for taking

care of the paperwork for the Amway activity. This

responsibility included inputting data related to income and

expenses onto Quicken, the personal finance software program.

Mrs. Meyer would then periodically compile a list of expenses for

the preceding month. In addition to such paperwork tasks, Mrs.

Meyer also “associated” with the wives of prospective and actual

“downline” distributors.

In or about 1996 petitioners experienced marital problems

that lead to their separation in October 1996 and the

commencement of an action for divorce that December. Mr. Meyer

disassociated himself from the Amway distributorship, and Mrs.

Meyer assumed her husband’s role. In particular, petitioners

filed a Business Status Change Form with Amway in October 1996,

which form served to remove Mr. Meyer’s name from the
 - 9 -

distributorship and to place the distributorship in Mrs. Meyer’s

sole name.

In addition to the $1,500 in negotiated child support to

which she was entitled, Mrs. Meyer hoped to receive from the

Amway distributorship “enough money so that I could continue

staying home with my kids.” In this regard, Mrs. Meyer estimated

that monthly Amway income of $1,000 would be sufficient to

sustain herself and her children. In order to produce that

income, Mrs. Meyer estimated that 25 “downline” distributors were

required, each of whom needed to purchase $200 of Amway products

for their personal use each month. In so estimating, Mrs. Meyer

relied on a profitability worksheet that was included with the

“9-4-2" plan given to her by her “upline” distributor.

Mrs. Meyer devoted “very little” time to making retail

sales. Rather, she “was out for distributors”. In this regard,

Mrs. Meyer attempted to recruit “downline” distributors by

“talking to anybody and everybody I knew. Anybody that shops.”

In order to talk to anyone who shops, Mrs. Meyer would frequent

public areas, such as churches, malls, and parks, in order to

make contacts so that she could “distribute hope back into

people’s lives.”.
 - 10 -

F. Petitioners’ Reconciliation and the Termination of the
Amway Activity

By November 1997, petitioners had reconciled, and the

divorce action was nonsuited. Subsequently, at some point in

1998, petitioners decided that they would no longer actively

pursue the Amway activity. Since that time, however, Mrs. Meyer

has continued to renew her status as an Amway distributor in

order to retain the right to purchase Amway products, such as

vitamins and cleaning products, for petitioners’ personal use at

discount prices.

G. Petitioners’ Schedule C Losses

For all relevant years, specifically including the taxable

years 1994 through 1998, petitioners filed joint Federal income

tax returns. Petitioners attached to each of those returns a

Schedule C, Income or Loss From Business, identifying “Karl L.

Meyer” as “proprietor” of “Meyer Enterprises” and describing the

principal business or service of such enterprise as

“Distribution”.

Petitioners have never reported a profit from the Amway

activity. Rather, petitioners have consistently claimed losses

from this activity and have used such losses to offset Mr.

Meyer’s compensation as a salesman.

The following schedule reflects the losses claimed by

petitioners from the Amway activity on Schedules C of their tax

returns for 1994 through 1998:
 - 11 -

Year Net Loss
1994 $4,216
1995 12,805
1996 16,295
1997 11,251
1998 4,997
49,564

Since 1998 petitioners have not claimed any losses from the

Amway activity.

Petitioners determined the amounts of their losses from the

Amway activity on Schedules C of their tax returns for 1994

through 1998 as follows:

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Gross income1 $27 $1,037 $504 $407 $2,810
Less: expenses 4,243 13,842 16,799 11,658 7,807
Net loss 4,216 12,805 16,295 11,251 4,997

1
Gross income was essentially the bonuses earned from the
sale (or personal consumption) of Amway products by “downline”
distributors. Petitioners themselves sold relatively few Amway
products.

Petitioners deducted expenses for the Amway activity on

Schedule C of their tax returns for 1994 through 1998 as follows:
 - 12 -

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Advertising --- $231 $392 $173 $292
Car expenses $1,912 5,472 5,560 6,888 2,621
Commissions/fees 120 382 33 --- ---
Legal/prof. services --- 560 --- --- ---
Office expense --- --- 577 78 133
Supplies 1,162 1,582 --- 1,352 1,684
Travel 605 200 2,574 616 ---
Meals/entertainment1 405 169 194 52 186
Utilities --- 761 836 608 348
Other expenses
Pubs 15 3,289 3,226 --- ---
Seminars/workshops --- 1,196 2,587 1,364 1,104
Rally tickets 24 --- --- --- ---
Cell phone --- --- 592 458 1,086
Dues --- --- --- 56 28
Postage --- --- 128 13 11
Voice way --- --- --- --- 314
______ _______ _______ _______ ______
Total expenses 4,243 13,842 16,699 11,658 7,807

1
Net after 50-percent reduction per sec. 274(n).

For the year in issue, petitioners deducted car expenses for

a Suburban SUV based on “business” use of 74.13 percent.

Petitioners determined this percentage based on the following

figures:

“Business” miles driven 21,867
Personal miles driven 7,633
Total miles driven 29,500

Discussion

Under section 183(a), if an activity is not engaged in for

profit, then no deduction attributable to the activity shall be

allowed except to the extent provided by section 183(b). In

pertinent part, section 183(b) allows deductions to the extent of

gross income derived from an activity that is not engaged in for

profit.
 - 13 -

Section 183(c) defines an activity not engaged in for profit

as “any activity other than one with respect to which deductions

are allowable for the taxable year under section 162 or under

paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.” Deductions are allowable

under section 162 or under section 212(1) or (2) if the taxpayer

is engaged in the activity with the “actual and honest objective

of making a profit.” Ronnen v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 74, 91

(1988); Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd.

without opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

The existence of the requisite profit objective is a

question of fact that must be decided on the basis of the entire

record. Benz v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 375, 382 (1974). In

resolving this factual question, greater weight is accorded

objective facts than a taxpayer's statement of intent. Westbrook

v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 875-876 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1993-634; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. For purposes

of deciding whether the taxpayer has the requisite profit

objective, profit means economic profit, independent of tax

savings. Surloff v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 210, 233 (1983).

The regulations set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors

that may be considered in deciding whether a profit objective

exists. These factors are: (1) The 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
 - 14 -

carrying on the activity; (4) the expectation that the assets

used in the activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of

the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar

activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or losses with

respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if

any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer;

and (9) any elements indicating personal pleasure or recreation.

Sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.

No single factor, nor even the existence of a majority of

factors favoring or disfavoring the existence of a profit

objective, is controlling. Id.; Ogden v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1999-397, affd. per curiam 244 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2001).

Rather, the relevant facts and circumstances of the case are

determinative. Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979),

affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981).

Based on all of the facts and circumstances in the present

case, we hold that petitioners did not engage in the Amway

activity for profit within the meaning of section 183.

We shall not analyze in depth all nine of the factors

enumerated in the regulation but rather focus on some of the more

important ones that inform our decision.

First, the history of consistent and substantial losses

incurred by petitioners in the Amway activity is indicative of a

lack of profit objective. See Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at
 - 15 -

427; sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs. A series of losses

during the initial stage of an activity is not necessarily an

indication that a taxpayer is not engaged in an activity for

profit. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs. However, if such

losses continue beyond the period in which it is customary for an

activity to become profitable, then the losses, if they are

unexplainable, may be indicative of a lack of a profit objective.

Id.

Since the inception of the Amway activity in 1994,

petitioners never earned a profit therefrom but rather incurred

losses for 5 consecutive years. Indeed, petitioners’ aggregate

losses for the 5-year period from 1994 through 1998 amounted to

$49,564, thus averaging approximately $10,000 per year.

Further, no significant trend is discernible in the history

of petitioners’ losses. For 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997,

petitioners incurred losses of $4,216, $12,805, and $16,295, and

$11,251 respectively. It bears mention that petitioners became

Amway distributors in the latter part of 1994; thus, the loss for

that year is based solely on 4 months of operation. Further,

although it is true that petitioners’ loss decreased in 1998 to

$4,997, it is also true that 1998 was the last year in which

petitioners actively pursued the Amway activity.

Second, we are not convinced that petitioners conducted the

Amway activity in a businesslike manner. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1),
 - 16 -

Income Tax Regs. Although petitioners maintained computer-

generated records for the Amway activity (and may also have

utilized a separate bank account), such records appear to have

been maintained principally to satisfy substantiation

requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and thus to

“guarantee” the deductibility of expenses. In contrast, such

records do not appear to have been used as analytic or diagnostic

tools in an effort to achieve profitability of the Amway

activity. As we have previously stated:

the keeping of books and records may represent nothing
more than a conscious attention to detail. In this
case, there has been no showing that books and records
were kept for the purpose of cutting expenses,
increasing profits, and evaluating the overall
performance of the operation. The petitioner reviewed
her records, but she has failed to show that she used
them to improve the operation of the enterprise.
[Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 430.]

Moreover, petitioners did not maintain certain types of

records, nor did petitioners employ certain elementary business

practices that one would expect of individuals pursuing an

activity with a profit objective. See Nissley v. Commissioner,

T. C. Memo. 2000-178; Ogden v. Commissioner, supra; Theisen v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-539; Hart v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1995-55. Thus, although a monthly report of expenses was

maintained, neither profit projections, a break-even analysis,

nor a formal budget was ever prepared. Further, no market

analysis was ever undertaken, nor was any business plan (other
 - 17 -

than the Amway “9-4-2 plan”) ever developed.

Furthermore, for the year in issue, no in-depth analysis was

ever performed in order to determine how many “downline”

distributors were needed to attain a break-even point. Although

Mrs. Meyer estimated that 25 distributors were required to attain

a “bare bones” standard of living, such estimate was not based on

a business plan or any independent analysis. Rather, Mrs. Meyer

was content to rely on the profitability worksheet given to her

by an “upline” distributor.

A third factor militating against petitioners’ claim of

profit objective is the fact that petitioners had no experience

with Amway or an Amway type of activity at the time that they

were recruited by an Amway distributor. See sec. 1.183-2(b)(2),

Income Tax Regs. Since that time, petitioners have principally

relied only on advice from “upline” distributors and other

interested Amway individuals.

Yet, under the Amway system, the “upline” distributor’s

bonus is not directly affected by the “downline” distributor’s

profitability or lack of profitability; rather, what is important

to the “upline” distributor is the “downline” distributor’s

volume of sales. Nevertheless, petitioners have steadfastly

refused to seek meaningful counsel from disinterested third

parties regarding means by which the Amway activity might be made
 - 18 -

profitable.10 See Poast v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-399

(“for the most part, petitioners’ advisers were not experts as

much as they were upliners with a financial stake in petitioners’

retail and downline sales”); Ogden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1999-397 (“Amway distributors may be biased when discussing Amway

because they have a natural desire to advance the organization

and/or obtain income from a downliner.”).

Petitioners’ refusal to seek meaningful counsel from

disinterested third parties is all the more telling given the

fact that the advice received from interested Amway individuals

did nothing to reverse petitioners’ history of uninterrupted and

substantial losses. Furthermore, the record suggests that the

“advice” petitioners received consisted of little more than

platitudes, generalities, and encouragement to “give it all

you’ve got”.

A fourth factor militating against petitioners’ claim is the

amount of time that petitioners devoted to the Amway activity.

See sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs. In this vein, Mrs.

Meyer repeatedly testified that the key to a successful Amway

“business” was not selling products, but rather establishing an

extensive network of “downline” distributors in order to “change

10
We do not regard general encouragement given by Mrs.
Meyer’s divorce lawyer to “stick with it” to constitute
meaningful business counsel. In any event, Mrs. Meyer admitted
that this individual never gave her advice concerning how the
Amway activity might be made profitable.
 - 19 -

the way people shop”. However, for the year in issue, Mrs. Meyer

could not approximate how much time she spent on the Amway

activity, other than to state that “very little” time was devoted

to retail sales. Indeed, the record reflects that no sales were

made for a consecutive 8-month period. Mrs. Meyer’s time and

effort consisted of nothing more than engaging in the daily

activities of a homemaker and mother. Her testimony at trial

underscores this conclusion:

Q: Do you know how much time you spent a day or a
week during 1997 showing the plan?

* * * * * * *

A: Not much in the beginning because again, like I
said, I was out meeting people, getting to know someone to –
in order to show them the plan, * * * I went to a lot of
Bible studies. * * * I was attending Second Baptist Church,
and they had a lot of singles activities, and so I would go
to them.

I went to shopping in the mall. That’s places I could
take the kids. I would go to parks. I would go to –
basically I talked to people, and anywhere and any way that
I could get a name, something that I could find in common
with them to get back with them again later to try and
develop and build a friendship.

Fifth, section 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax Regs., provides

that “Substantial income from sources other than the activity

(particularly if the losses from the activity generate

substantial tax benefits) may indicate that the activity is not

engaged in for profit especially if there are personal or

recreational elements involved.” Golanty v. Commissioner, supra

at 428-429; see Ransom v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-381.
 - 20 -

In the present case, Mr. Meyer is a successful salesman.

His aggregate commission income for the 3-year period from 1994

to 1996 amounted to $279,703, or approximately $93,000 per year.

For 1997, the year in issue, Mr. Meyer’s commission income

exceeded $97,000. On joint returns for each of these 4 years,

petitioners claimed losses from their Amway activity, which

losses served to reduce Mr. Meyer’s compensation, thereby

decreasing petitioners’ taxable income and achieving substantial

tax savings.11

This Court has observed that “there are significant elements

of personal pleasure attached to the activities of an Amway

distributorship” and that an “Amway distributorship presents

taxpayers with opportunities to generate business deductions for

essentially personal expenditures.” Brennan v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1997-60; see also sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax

Regs.; cf. sec. 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax Regs., regarding the

reference to “personal or recreational elements” quoted above.

Moreover, petitioners received a personal benefit from their

Amway activity through their ability to purchase Amway products

for their own personal use at distributor’s cost without the

customary percentage markup. At trial, petitioners candidly

11
Those savings also helped to finance car expenses.
Thus, for example, in 1997 petitioners deducted automobile
expenses on their Suburban SUV based on “business” use in excess
of 74 percent.
 - 21 -

admitted that one of the major benefits of being Amway

distributors was the savings that they could realize on the

purchase of products for personal use. The fact that Mrs. Meyer

has continued to renew her Amway membership in order to purchase

merchandise at discount prices illustrates the personal dimension

of the Amway activity.

On this record, we find that petitioners did not have the

requisite objective in 1997 of making a profit in the Amway

activity. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are not entitled

to deduct the loss from the Amway activity for that year.

Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

In order to give effect to our disposition of the disputed

issue, as well as respondent’s concession, see supra note 2,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.