T.C. Memo. 2004-215
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JANE FREED, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11387-01. Filed September 23, 2004.
William F. Rigsby, for petitioner.
Ronald T. Jordan, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
KROUPA, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioner’s Federal income tax for the taxable year 1996 of
$64,213 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)1 of
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for
the year at issue unless otherwise indicated, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
$409. After concessions,2 the sole issue for decision is whether
petitioner operated her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing
activities for profit in 1996. We hold that she did not.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits are
incorporated by this reference. Petitioner resided in Elberon,
New Jersey, at the time she filed the petition.
I. Petitioner
Petitioner was engaged in thoroughbred horse breeding and
racing activities from the early 1980s through 1996, the year at
issue. She acquired her first horse, a riding horse, after she
married her first husband in 1949. At some point before her
second marriage, she acquired a steeplechase horse for showing.
She was first introduced to thoroughbred horses when she operated
her second husband’s unprofitable thoroughbred horse activities
in the 1960s. She began active thoroughbred horse breeding
activities in 1982, and racing activities in 1984.
Petitioner’s herd has varied over the years in quantity and
ratio of breeding horses to racing horses. Petitioner’s 1996
2
Petitioner conceded she was not entitled to $7,302 in
charitable contribution deductions because she failed to present
evidence to substantiate the deduction. Petitioner also failed
to present any evidence or arguments regarding the accuracy-
related penalty under sec. 6662(a). This issue is deemed
conceded.
- 3 -
herd consisted of three breeding horses and eight racing horses.
Petitioner’s breeding herd is stabled at McMahon of Saratoga
Thoroughbreds Farm (McMahon Farm). Petitioner’s racing herd is
boarded at various tracks where they race, which is standard
practice for racing thoroughbreds. The horses race exclusively
in New York State. She visits her horses in person only three to
four times per year. She most often watches her horses race via
closed circuit simulcast in New Jersey. She never had any of her
thoroughbred horses appraised.
Petitioner’s educational background consists of a bachelor’s
degree in anthropology that she received from Monmouth College in
1981. Her employment history consists of a lab technician’s
position for an archeologist as well as a position as an
instructor at an archeology field school between 1981 and 1983.
Petitioner is the beneficiary of three trusts holding assets
with a total value of approximately $6 million. The trusts were
funded by petitioner’s inheritance from her mother. Petitioner
derives her primary income from dividends and interest received
from the trusts. From 1985 through 1996, she received over $3.2
million of income from the trusts–-over $200,000 in 1996 alone.
Petitioner did not make a profit from her thoroughbred horse
breeding and racing activities in any year between 1982 and 1996.
Her losses during that time totaled over $1.1 million.
- 4 -
II. Petitioner’s Advisers
Petitioner consulted with various advisers in conducting her
thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities. She employed
a professional breeding manager, professional trainers, and a
certified public accountant (CPA).
Petitioner employed Joseph McMahon (McMahon) as her breeding
manager from the time she began her breeding activities in 1982
through 1996, the year at issue. He is the operator of McMahon
Farm, located in Saratoga, New York, approximately 255 miles from
petitioner’s residence in New Jersey. McMahon Farm has
approximately 500 acres, boards between 150 and 300 horses, and
employs 14 full-time employees year round. It also occasionally
retains the services of varying numbers of seasonal employees.
McMahon cared for the day-to-day needs of petitioner’s breeding
horses and maintained breeding records for the breeding horses.
Petitioner frequently consulted with McMahon and relied upon
his advice regarding her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing
activities. He has approximately 90 thoroughbred horse breeding
clients. His farm produced Funny Cide, a gelding who won the
Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes in 2003.
Petitioner employed different training managers during the
course of her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities.
These trainers were based in New York, Florida, and South
Carolina. Petitioner employed trainers in Southern States
- 5 -
because she felt the better weather and grass there gave her
horses a training advantage when the racing season began in New
York.
Richard Mahon (Mahon) is a CPA licensed in New Jersey.
Petitioner has employed Mahon to perform record keeping for her
thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities since
approximately 1982, and he has many other clients who raise
horses. These records were distinct from petitioner’s personal
financial records.
In 1996, Mahon prepared annual and semiannual Statements of
Income Collected and Expenses Paid for petitioner’s thoroughbred
horse breeding and racing activities. Each statement included
results from the prior year for purposes of comparison.
Mahon provided other services to petitioner in 1996 as well
as in previous years. He prepared miscellaneous ledgers,
maintained other records in connection with petitioner’s
thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities, and prepared
petitioner’s Federal and State income tax returns. Petitioner
did not prepare nor did she have prepared balance sheets,
financial projections, or budgets in connection with her
thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities for any year in
which she engaged in the activities.
- 6 -
Petitioner read various horse industry publications
including Blood Horse and Thoroughbred Times. In addition,
petitioner daily checked race results in newspapers.
III. New York Breeder’s Program
New York State offers an incentive program to induce
thoroughbred horse owners to conduct their breeding and racing
activities in New York. Under the program, owners of winning
horses receive the full purse due each winning horse owner. In
addition, the owners of the winner’s parents, if the winner was
foaled in New York, receive 20 percent of the winner’s race
winnings.
Petitioner has participated in the program since she began
her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities. During
that time, the program’s qualification restrictions eased.
Breeders were allowed to engage out-of-State thoroughbreds with
New York thoroughbreds and still qualify for the breeder’s 20-
percent payout. Subsequently, petitioner bred some of her mares
with various out-of-State stallions.
IV. Petitioner’s 1996 Tax Return
Petitioner timely filed her 1996 tax return in which she
deducted expenses relating to her thoroughbred horse breeding and
racing activities. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to
petitioner for 1996 in which respondent disallowed the deductions
because petitioner did not engage in her thoroughbred horse
- 7 -
breeding and racing activities for a profit under section 183.
Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court seeking
redetermination of the disallowed deductions.
OPINION
I. Whether Petitioner Operated Her Horse Racing and Breeding
Activities for Profit in 1996
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner operated
her thoroughbred horse racing and breeding activities for profit
in 1996 within the meaning of section 183. Section 183(a)
provides generally that if an individual engages in an activity
and “if such activity is not engaged in for profit, no deduction
attributable to such activity shall be allowed under this chapter
except as provided in this section.” Deductions that would be
allowable without regard to whether the activity is engaged in
for profit shall be allowed under section 183(b)(1) and
deductions that would be allowable only if the activity is
engaged in for profit shall be allowed under section 183(b)(2),
but only to the extent that the gross income from the activity
exceeds the deductions otherwise allowable under section
183(b)(1).
We follow the Court of Appeals opinion squarely in point
where appeal from our decision would lie absent stipulation by
the parties to the contrary. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742
(1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). Because petitioner
resides in the Third Circuit, petitioner has the burden of
- 8 -
proving that she conducted her activities with the actual and
honest intent to make a profit. See Purdey v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1989-657, affd. without published opinion 922 F.2d 833 (3d
Cir. 1990).
Although section 7491(a) places the burden of proof on the
Commissioner with regard to certain factual issues involving
examinations commenced after July 22, 1998, which this case was,
petitioner does not assert that section 7491(a) shifts the burden
to respondent. Therefore, the burden of proof remains with
petitioner.
Whether a taxpayer has an actual and honest profit objective
is determined on the basis of all surrounding facts and
circumstances. Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642 (1982),
affd. without published opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983);
sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. We give greater weight to
objective facts than to a taxpayer’s statements of intent.
Dreicer v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
We structure our analysis around nine nonexclusive factors.
Sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. The nine factors are: (1) The
manner in which the taxpayer carried on the activity; (2) the
expertise of the taxpayer or his or her advisers; (3) the time
and effort expended by the taxpayer in 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
- 9 -
on other similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer’s
history of income or loss 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) whether elements of
personal pleasure or recreation are involved. Id.
Before we analyze the nine factors, we note that petitioner
urges us to place the greatest weight on the first three factors
because several periodical articles suggest a correlation between
satisfying the first three factors and the outcome of the case.
The articles conclude that taxpayers who meet the first three
factors generally prevail in their cases and those who do not
meet any of the first three factors generally lose. We fail to
see the correlation and are not bound by the conclusions in the
articles. No factor or set of factors is controlling, nor is the
existence of a majority of factors favoring or disfavoring a
profit objective necessarily controlling. Hendricks v.
Commissioner, 32 F.3d 94, 98 (4th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo.
1993-396; Brannen v. Commissioner, 722 F.2d 695, 704 (11th Cir.
1984), affg. 78 T.C. 471 (1982); sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax
Regs. The individual facts and circumstances of each case are
the primary test. Abramson v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 360, 371
(1986).
- 10 -
II. Application of the Factors
1. The Manner in Which the Taxpayer Carried On the Activity
We begin by examining the manner in which petitioner carried
on her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities. The
fact that a taxpayer carries on the activity in a businesslike
manner may indicate a profit objective. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1),
Income Tax Regs. In deciding whether a taxpayer conducted an
activity in a businesslike manner, we consider whether accurate
books were kept, whether the activity was conducted in a manner
substantially similar to that of other for-profit activities of
the same nature, and whether changes were made in an attempt to
earn a profit. Ballich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-497;
sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner did not conduct her thoroughbred horse breeding
and racing activities in a businesslike manner. Although she
kept adequate records and employed a CPA to prepare a few
financial statements, respondent argues, and we are persuaded,
that she failed to make meaningful changes3 in her method of
operation despite a 14-year history of significant losses. Her
enduring losses of this magnitude without making changes shows
3
Petitioner changed trainers and adapted her breeding
activities to adapt to qualifying criteria changes in the New
York Breeders Program. These changes did not occur, however,
until after 1996, the year in question. Accordingly, we place no
weight on petitioner’s argument that these changes were made to
stem petitioner’s losses before 1996.
- 11 -
that she did not conduct her thoroughbred horse breeding and
racing activities in a businesslike manner.
2. The Expertise of the Taxpayers or Their Advisers
We next consider petitioner’s expertise or the expertise of
her advisers in her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing
activities. Efforts to gain experience and a willingness to
follow expert advice are considered in deciding whether a
taxpayer has a profit objective. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(2), Income Tax
Regs. Preparing for an activity by consulting with experts may
indicate that a taxpayer has a profit motive if the taxpayer
follows that advice. Id.
Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that both she and her
advisers possess the requisite expertise in thoroughbred horse
breeding and racing to indicate a profit motive. She herself has
been involved with different aspects of the thoroughbred horse
industry since the late 1960s, and she has been involved in her
current capacity as an owner in the industry since the early
1980s.
Further, her advisers are experts in thoroughbred horse
breeding and racing as well. Her breeding manager, McMahon, owns
and operates a thoroughbred horse farm that produced Funny Cide,
who won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness in the same
year. Petitioner also employed professional trainers all over
the country, and her CPA has handled the books for her
- 12 -
thoroughbred horse activities for 14 years and has many other
clients who raise horses as well.
We place little weight on respondent’s argument that
petitioner lacks the requisite expertise because neither she nor
her advisers are experts in the economics of thoroughbred horses.
Petitioner does not need advanced training in economics to know
that a thoroughbred horse that wins races is more valuable than
one that does not. Petitioner’s advisers have demonstrated an
expertise in breeding and training winning thoroughbreds, and she
has demonstrated a willingness to solicit and follow their
advice.
3. The Time and Effort Expended by the Taxpayer in
Carrying On the Activity
We next consider the time and effort petitioner expended in
carrying on her thoroughbred horse breeding and racing
activities. A taxpayer’s devotion of much time and effort to
conducting an activity, particularly if the activity does not
involve recreational aspects, may indicate that he or she has a
profit objective. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner claims to have spent 10 to 20 hours per week on
bookkeeping alone. In addition, she claims that she spent time
reading industry-related publications as well as time talking to
her breeding and training managers. Respondent counters that
petitioner overstated the amount of time and points out that,
- 13 -
because petitioner lived in another State, she could not have
devoted as much time to these activities as she claims.
We find that petitioner failed to corroborate her testimony.
We are not required to accept petitioner’s uncorroborated, self-
serving testimony. See, e.g., Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99
T.C. 202, 219-220 (1992); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986).
Petitioner then analogizes this case to numerous other
thoroughbred horse cases where the taxpayers dedicated comparable
amounts of time to their activities. See, e.g., Smith v.
Commissioner, 9 T.C. 1150 (1947); Eisenman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1988-467; Appley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-433. We
decline to detail the distinctions between this case and each of
these other cases. The potentially infinite combination of
factors that affect this analysis makes it virtually impossible
to analogize the importance of any one factor in relation to the
others under different scenarios.
4. The Expectation That the Assets Used in the
Activity May Appreciate in Value
We next examine the expectation that the assets used in
petitioner’s thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities
may appreciate in value. A taxpayer may intend, despite the lack
of profit from current operations, that an overall profit will
result when appreciation in the value of assets used in the
activity is realized. Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 261,
- 14 -
274 (1965), affd. 379 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1967); sec.
1.183-2(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.
Although petitioner contends she expected the assets to
appreciate in value in light of her actions, petitioner failed to
explain how she expected the sale of her thoroughbred horses and
their offspring to recoup the over $1.1 million in losses she
incurred over 14 years. She never had any of her thoroughbred
horses appraised. In addition, nothing in the record
demonstrates that any of the thoroughbred horses she sold
commanded such a price that she could expect to overcome her
history of losses.
5. The Success of the Taxpayer in Carrying On Other
Similar or Dissimilar Activities
We next examine the success of petitioner in carrying on
other similar or dissimilar activities. If a taxpayer has
previously engaged in similar activities and made them
profitable, this success may show that the taxpayer has a profit
objective, even though the activity is presently unprofitable.
Sec. 1.183-2(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.
Respondent claims that petitioner has never transformed an
unprofitable enterprise into a profitable one. The evidence
shows that petitioner’s only other foray into thoroughbred horse
activities was her second husband’s unprofitable horse farm in
the 1960s. Petitioner urges us to discount this factor because
the professional journal articles upon which petitioner relies
- 15 -
did not find this factor determinative. We decline petitioner’s
invitation. It is for this Court to decide how much weight to
attribute to each factor.
Petitioner admitted she had never earned a profit while she
was involved with her previous thoroughbred horse activities. We
have found this as a fact.
6. The Taxpayer’s History of Income or Loss With Respect
to the Activity
We next examine petitioner’s history of income or loss with
respect to the activity. A history of substantial losses may
indicate that the taxpayer did not conduct the activity for
profit. Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 427 (1979); sec.
1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs. Losses during the initial stage
of an activity do not necessarily indicate, however, that the
activity was not conducted for profit. Engdahl v. Commissioner,
72 T.C. 659 (1980); sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner began her thoroughbred horse activities in 1982
and incurred losses of more than $1.1 million as of 1996, the
year at issue. Petitioner contends that we should disregard her
history of losses because the small chance to earn a large profit
may indicate an intent to earn a profit.
We find nothing in the record to support petitioner’s claim.
Petitioner never took any steps to put herself in position to
earn the substantial profit necessary to recoup her previous
losses. She engaged in similar breeding patterns year after year
- 16 -
that failed to produce a foal capable of recouping the types of
losses she incurred over the years. She also continued to race
at tracks that she testified did not offer the chance for high
payouts.
Petitioner explains away her substantial losses by arguing
there were several unforeseen events that negatively affected her
activities. These events include: (1) The death of one of her
broodmares; (2) barren broodmares; (3) poor performance of racing
thoroughbreds; and (4) negative economic conditions. We are not
convinced that any of these circumstances are the type that
should have caught petitioner by surprise.
Petitioner next urges the Court to ignore losses she
incurred before 1991 because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
examined her income tax return for 1991 and did not disallow the
deductions she claimed for her thoroughbred horse breeding and
racing activities. In effect, petitioner is asking us to ignore
the pre-1991 losses because the IRS previously “approved” these
losses. We decline petitioner’s invitation because 1991 is not
the year at issue in this case. The facts and circumstances in
1991 are different from those in 1996. Furthermore, even if it
were the same year, a trial before this Court in a deficiency
case is a proceeding de novo. We are not bound by the findings
of an IRS audit. Casey v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 357 (1962).
- 17 -
7. The Amount of Occasional Profits, If Any, Which Are
Earned
We next consider the amount of occasional profits, if any,
the taxpayer earned. Occasional profits the taxpayer earned from
the activity, in relation to the amount of losses incurred, the
amount of the taxpayer’s investment, and the value of the assets
used in the activity provide useful criteria in determining the
taxpayer’s intent. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner contends that this factor should favor her
because she showed a profit in 2001, 2002, and 2003 from her
breeding activities. We place no weight on these “profits”. We
note that the “profit” in 2001 is due primarily to petitioner’s
capitalizing $70,000 of boarding costs that she had expensed in
prior years. If petitioner had treated the boarding costs in
2001 as she had in previous years, she would have shown a loss in
2001 as well. Moreover, no evidence was produced to substantiate
a profit in 2002 or 2003.
8. The Financial Status of the Taxpayer
We next examine petitioner’s financial status. If a
taxpayer does not have substantial income or capital from sources
other than the activity in question, it may indicate that the
activity is engaged in for profit. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(8), Income
Tax Regs. Conversely, substantial income from sources other than
the activity, especially if the losses generate large tax
- 18 -
benefits, may indicate that the taxpayer is not conducting the
activity for profit. Id.
Petitioner contends that her financial status should have
little significance because the amount she expended reduced her
spendable income more than the benefit it provided in reducing
her taxable income. Her argument ignores that losses from one
activity can provide a tax benefit if the losses shelter income
from another source. Petitioner is the beneficiary of a $6
million trust that provided her with over $3.2 million in income
from 1985 through 1996, including over $200,000 in 1996. During
that same time, petitioner incurred and deducted over $1.1
million of losses from her thoroughbred horse activities.
Petitioner does enjoy a tax benefit from her thoroughbred horse
activity.
9. Whether Elements of Personal Pleasure or Recreation Are
Involved
We next examine whether elements of personal pleasure or
recreation were involved in the activity. The presence of
recreational or pleasurable motives in conducting an activity may
indicate that the taxpayer is not conducting the activity for
profit. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs. A taxpayer’s
enjoyment of an activity does not show, however, that the
taxpayer lacks a profit objective if the activity is, in fact,
conducted for profit as shown by other factors. Jackson v.
- 19 -
Commissioner, 59 T.C. 312, 317 (1972); sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income
Tax Regs.
Petitioner contends that there were no elements of personal
pleasure or recreation involved in her thoroughbred horse
breeding and racing activities. She did not live on a farm with
a trophy house. She never rode the horses. In fact, she
intentionally avoided contact with them to remain detached. She
saw the horses only three or four times a year. There is no
indication that she had any affection for any of the horses.
We find petitioner’s intentional limited contact with her
horses indicates minimal pleasure and recreation were involved.
10. Conclusion
Considering all of the facts and circumstances of this case,
we find that petitioner failed to prove that she engaged in
thoroughbred horse breeding and racing activities with the actual
and honest intent to earn a profit. Accordingly, we sustain
respondent’s determination in the statutory notice of deficiency.
We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and conclude
they are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
III. Procedural Issue
We finally address a procedural matter. Petitioner attached
to her reply brief a copy of an article from an unknown source
that discusses one of petitioner’s thoroughbred horses.
- 20 -
Respondent made a motion to strike the attachment from the record
as untimely.
Respondent’s motion to strike will be granted. The time for
presenting evidence is at trial. The parties may not introduce
new evidence after the trial has concluded and the record closed.
The Court does not try a case piecemeal. Moreover, statements in
briefs or in documents attached to briefs are not evidence and,
accordingly are not considered by the Court as such. Rule
143(b); Evans v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 704, 709 (1967), affd. per
curiam 413 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1969); Chapman v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-147; Berglund v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
536.
An order will be issued
granting respondent’s motion
to strike, and decision will
be entered for respondent.