T.C. Memo. 2006-15
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ELIZABETH GILES, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16640-03. Filed January 31, 2006.
B. Paul Husband, for petitioner.
Michael W. Berwind, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HAINES, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies of
$7,117, $5,470, and $6,793 and accuracy-related penalties under
section 6662(a) for 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively (years in
issue).1 After concessions,2 the issues for decision are:
1
Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the
(continued...)
- 2 -
(1) Whether petitioner’s horse activity was an activity engaged
in for profit within the meaning of section 183 during the years
in issue; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-
related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1999 and 2000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts, the supplemental stipulation of facts,
and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
A. Background
At the time she filed the petition, petitioner resided in
Riverside, California.
Petitioner is a dentist licensed by the Dental Board of
California. Petitioner operates her own dental practice as a
professional corporation, of which she is the sole shareholder.
From 1988 through 2003, petitioner’s average annual income from
her dental practice was $109,547. During the years in issue,
petitioner reported income from her dental practice of $120,500,
$106,250, and $138,250, respectively.
1
(...continued)
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2
Respondent concedes that petitioner has substantiated all
expenses reported on Schedules C, Profit or Loss From Business,
for the years in issue. As a result, respondent concedes that
there is no deficiency in 2001 and petitioner is not liable for
an accuracy-related penalty relating to that year.
- 3 -
B. Petitioner’s Real Property
1. Falling Water Way
On July 27, 1983, petitioner purchased for $135,000 real
property at 18500 Falling Water Way in Riverside, California
(Falling Water Way). Falling Water Way includes 1.48 acres of
land, a 2,252-square-foot four-bedroom home, a garage, a four-
stall barn with tack room, feed rooms, hay storage, an arena, and
some paddocks.
Falling Water Way is in an area with many horse properties.
Falling Water Way is zoned “Residential Agricultural” by
Riverside County. A Riverside County zoning ordinance allows the
“noncommercial keeping of horses” in Residential Agricultural
zones. The zoning ordinance permits breeding and raising of
horses but prohibits Falling Water Way from being used as a
livery stable or a boarding stable. The zoning ordinance limits
the number of horses that can be kept at Falling Water Way to
four.
Falling Water Way has been petitioner’s principal residence
since its purchase in 1983. Petitioner put Falling Water Way up
for sale in 1991 but did not sell the property.
As of June 15, 2004, Falling Water Way had a fair market
value of $530,000. The fair market value of the horse facilities
and property, other than the house and the garage, was $375,000.
- 4 -
2. Gavilan Hills
In August 1990, petitioner purchased for $70,000 11.53 acres
of undeveloped ranch land in the unincorporated Gavilan Hills
area of Riverside County, California (Gavilan Hills). Gavilan
Hills is approximately 5 miles from Falling Water Way. Between
August and October 1990, petitioner engaged Wellmaster Drilling,
Inc., to drill two wells at Gavilan Hills.
On October 7, 2003, Gavilan Hills was zoned “Residential
Agricultural.” The new zoning laws allow up to 24 horses to be
kept on the property but prohibit the operation of a livery
stable or boarding stable.
As of June 15, 2004, the fair market value of Gavilan Hills
was $306,000.
3. Rialto Property
Petitioner has operated her dental practice at 350 North
Riverside Avenue in Rialto, California (Rialto property), since
1983. The Rialto property consists of a 1,900-square-foot house
zoned for professional office use.
From 1983 through 1995, petitioner’s professional
corporation leased the Rialto property. On November 17, 1995,
petitioner purchased the Rialto property for $136,500. From 1996
through 2003, except for the year 2000, petitioner’s professional
corporation paid petitioner $24,000 annually for the use of the
Rialto property. In 2000, petitioner’s professional corporation
- 5 -
paid petitioner $22,000 for the use of the Rialto property. On
her 1996 Federal income tax return, petitioner reported a rental
loss of $12,357 as a result of significant repair expenses
incurred upon acquisition of the property. From 1997 to 2003,
petitioner reported average annual rental income of $7,871.
During the years in issue, petitioner reported rental income of
$7,944, $6,659, and $7,202, respectively.
C. Petitioner’s Horse Activity
1. Background
Petitioner was raised around horses and showed horses as a
child and young adult. In 1984, petitioner purchased her first
horse, Feyras Raehele.
In 1988, petitioner commenced her horse activity at Falling
Water Way under the name “Falling Water Arabians”. Petitioner
dealt only with purebred Arabian horses. At the time she started
her activity, petitioner did not know how many Arabian horse
breeders operated in California.
During the years in issue, petitioner used Falling Water Way
for breeding, training, and working the horses. However, because
petitioner has only 1.48 acres at Falling Water Way, she often
took the horses to Gavilan Hills to exercise and train them.
During the years in issue, petitioner wormed and vaccinated
her horses. Petitioner also ordered supplies and paid bills
related to her horse activity.
- 6 -
Petitioner maintained a library of horse-related reference
materials, including 15 books, 6 trade journals/periodicals, and
14 video sets. During the years in issue, petitioner spent 6 to
8 hours per month reading trade journals.
Petitioner had a Falling Water Arabians business card
listing the Falling Water Way address as the business address.
However, the business card was prepared in the late 1980s, and
the phone numbers are no longer correct.
Petitioner maintained a checking account with California
Bank & Trust in Moreno Valley, California, under the names
Elizabeth Giles and Falling Water Arabians. From December 16,
1998, to December 3, 2001, the account’s average daily balance
never exceeded $402. A $9 maintenance fee was deducted from the
account monthly. The only other withdrawal taken during this
period was $240 on April 13, 2000, the purpose of which was not
identified. As of April 17, 2001, the account had a negative
balance of -40 cents. The only deposit made before December 4,
2001, was $9, deposited on May 5, 2001, in order to restore a
positive account balance. On December 4, 2001, petitioner
deposited $20,000 received from the sale of Bogaz, as discussed
below.
During the years in issue, petitioner spent 4-1/2 to 6 hours
a day with the horses. In a typical day, petitioner fed,
- 7 -
watered, administered necessary medications to, exercised, and
trained her horses. In addition, petitioner cleaned stalls.
During the years in issue, petitioner showed two of her
horses, Bogaz and Kart Blanche, five to six times per year. She
did not show her other horses during the years in issue. At the
shows, petitioner often rode the horses herself. Petitioner
received only a few hundred dollars for showing the horses from
1999 through 2001. In 2001, petitioner switched to the show
discipline of dressage.3
During the years in issue, petitioner did not ride her
horses in parades. Petitioner did not attend any social or
charity events relating to horses.
From 1988 to 2003, petitioner did not provide any services
to third parties, including training, coaching, or boarding.
From 1988 through 2000 and from 2002 through 2004, petitioner did
not sell any horses. In 2001, petitioner sold only one horse,
Bogaz.
2. Petitioner’s Horses
In 1999 and 2000, petitioner owned the following horses:
Feyras Raehele, Kart Blanche, Borissa, and Bogaz. Petitioner
3
“Dressage” is a disciplined practice in which the horse
is controlled in certain difficult steps and gaits by slight
movements of the rider. Dressage is a competitive event in the
Olympic Games, the Pan American Games, and other competitions.
There are two introductory levels of dressage, four separate
training levels, and four separate competitive levels.
- 8 -
also held future income interests, as discussed below, in TF
Silent Reign in 1999, and in TF Silent Reign and Mon Reve in
2000.
At the beginning of 2001, petitioner owned Feyras Raehele,
Kart Blanche, Borissa, and Bogaz and continued to hold future
income interests in TF Silent Reign and Mon Reve. During 2001,
petitioner acquired Censuous by breeding. In December 2001,
petitioner sold Bogaz for $20,000.
Following is a description of petitioner’s horses and
related breeding activity.
a. Feyras Raehele and Kart Blanche
In 1984, petitioner purchased Feyras Raehele, an Arabian
mare4 foaled5 on May 19, 1979. During 1988, petitioner bred
Feyras Raehele. On April 21, 1989, Feyras Raehele produced a
filly,6 Kart Blanche.
b. Borissa, Bogaz, and Censuous
In 1989, petitioner leased Borissa, a mare foaled in 1982,
from Raymond Mazzei of Furioso Farm for breeding purposes. On
4
A “mare” is a female horse of reproductive age.
5
“Foaled” is synonymous with “born”. A “foal” is a baby
horse of either sex. “In foal” indicates that a mare is
pregnant. The gestation period for an Arabian horse is typically
11 months, but can be anywhere from 10 to 12 months.
6
A “filly” is a female horse 3 years old or younger.
- 9 -
March 1, 1990, Borissa produced a colt7 named VT Kartel. After
seeing VT Kartel, petitioner purchased Borissa for $2,500. VT
Kartel died in 1991.
In 1990, petitioner again bred Borissa, who produced Bogaz
on May 19, 1991. Petitioner did not breed Borissa from 1992
through 1996.
On June 17, 1997, petitioner entered into a breeding
contract with Bishop Lane Farm to have Borissa bred to Bishop
Lane Farm’s stallions.8 Borissa was in foal in 1997, but her
foal died at birth in 1998. Upon the advice of Thomas Hoyme,
D.V.M., Borissa was not rebred in 1998.
In 1999, petitioner sent Borissa to an equine breeding
facility operated by Richard K. Tramp, D.V.M., for the purpose of
breeding Borissa by use of shipped cooled semen. Despite this
attempt, Borissa did not conceive in 1999.
In 2000, petitioner bred Borissa to Concensus, a stallion
from Bishop Lane Farm. As a result, Borissa produced a filly
named Censuous on March 20, 2001.
In 2001, petitioner sold Bogaz for $20,000. On December 4,
2001, petitioner deposited a $20,000 check received on the sale
into the California Bank and Trust account described above.
7
A “colt” is a male horse, not castrated, 3 years old or
younger.
8
A “stallion” is an adult male horse which has not been
castrated.
- 10 -
Petitioner invested the $20,000 in an individual retirement
account.
c. TF Silent Reign and Mon Reve
Petitioner bought TF Silent Reign in 1989 for $3,500. In
1997, petitioner transferred TF Silent Reign to her daughter,
Michelle Pope (Ms. Pope), for zero dollars. Petitioner and Ms.
Pope had an oral agreement that Ms. Pope would breed TF Silent
Reign and pay all related expenses, and they would split all
future profits, if any, from the breeding.
In 1999, Ms. Pope bred TF Silent Reign to Monogramm, an
Arabian stallion from Bishop Lane Farm. On March 8, 2000, TF
Silent Reign produced a filly named Mon Reve.
3. Petitioner’s Horse Activity Business Plans
a. Annual Business Plans
Ms. Pope is a certified public accountant (C.P.A.). With
the aid of Ms. Pope, petitioner prepared “annual business plans”
for the years 1989 through 1994. Each annual business plan is a
one-page fill-in-the-blank form with handwritten responses. Each
annual plan was prepared in the spring or summer of the year to
which it relates.
In the 1989 annual plan, petitioner listed her long-term
goals as “Sell Borissa’s foal. Estimate value after one year
7,000 to 10,000. Rah’s [Feyras Raehele’s] foal for show estimate
value if National winner approximately 50,000.”
- 11 -
In the 1990 annual plan, petitioner listed her long-term
goals as “Breeding/Selling” and “Training horses for added
value.” Under “plans for next year,” petitioner listed “Seek
better trainer with better reputation.”
In the 1991 annual plan, petitioner listed her long-term
goals as “Sell * * * [Falling Water Way] to set up business in
* * * [Gavilan Hills] for expansion. Breed, Show, Sell.”
In the 1992 annual plan, petitioner listed her long-term
goals as “Move to Gavilan Hills for expansion.” Under short-term
goals, petitioner listed “TF Silent Reign to Nationals with David
Garrett.” David Garrett is a trainer with whom petitioner
consulted about breeding, training, and showing.
In the 1993 annual plan, petitioner listed her long-term
goals as “Move to Gavilan Hills . . . Breed & Sell.” Under
“Changes/Decisions to Decrease Chances of Failure and Increase
Revenues,” petitioner stated “self train and self vet.”
In the 1994 annual plan, petitioner listed her long-term
goals as “Same as ‘93 Goals.” Under “successes,” petitioner
stated “Found Lou Roper.” Petitioner consulted with Lou Roper, a
national champion in the discipline of trail and hunting
pleasure, on horse training.
b. General Business Plan
Petitioner and Ms. Pope also prepared a “general business
plan” concerning petitioner’s horse activity. Similar to the
- 12 -
annual plans, the general plan is a one-page fill-in-the-blank
form with handwritten responses. Petitioner listed her
objectives as “Breed, Raise, Show to Increase Value, Sell.”
Petitioner listed areas of opportunity for profit as “Selling
Quality Show horses.” Petitioner stated that she hoped to start
making a profit in 7 years. It is not clear from the record when
the general plan was prepared or whether it related to any
specific years.
4. Income and Expenses From Petitioner’s Horse
Activity
After the close of each year, Ms. Pope compiled canceled
checks and credit card receipts and used these to categorize
expenses and prepare profit and loss statements. The profit and
loss statements do not identify the costs specifically connected
with each horse. The profit and loss statements do not indicate
what accounts the checks were drawn on.
Charles E. Wessman (Mr. Wessman), a C.P.A., used the profit
and loss statements to prepare petitioner’s Schedules C, Profit
or Loss From Business. Petitioner’s Schedules C for 1988 through
2003 reflect the following:
- 13 -
Veterinary Advertising Total
Year Gross Receipts Expenses Expenses Expenses Profit/(Loss)
1988 $95 $222 $742 $27,782 ($27,687)
1989 3,508 1,304 34 32,244 (28,736)
1990 244 3,410 135 38,197 (37,973)
1991 -0- 1,803 -0- 28,136 (28,136)
1992 3,000 2,434 -0- 32,545 (29,545)
1993 3,200 899 -0- 46,622 (43,422)
1994 4,080 5,322 -0- 38,152 (34,072)
1995 2,500 2,377 -0- 40,703 (38,203)
1996 3,024 1,272 1,837 40,337 (37,313)
1997 260 1,382 25 24,475 (24,215)
1998 500 1,453 -0- 21,568 (21,068)
1999 900 2,614 -0- 23,677 (22,777)
2000 1,000 1,731 -0- 18,649 (17,649)
2001 20,000 947 -0- 19,791 209
2002 -0- 3,101 -0- 27,072 (27,072)
2003 200 1,398 -0- 23,621 (23,421)
Total 42,511 31,669 2,773 483,571 (441,080)
D. Tax Treatment of Petitioner’s Horse Activity
1. Audit of Petitioner’s 1991 and 1992 Tax Returns
In 1994, Internal Revenue Agent W. Dillard conducted a field
audit of petitioner’s 1991 and 1992 tax returns, specifically
examining petitioner’s Schedule C horse activity under the
passive activity rules of section 469. Mr. Wessman handled the
audit on behalf of petitioner. On May 9, 1995, respondent sent
petitioner a letter stating: “We examined your tax return[s]
[for 1991 and 1992] and made no changes to the tax you reported.”
- 14 -
2. Prior Tax Court Case Involving 1997 and 1998
Respondent audited petitioner’s 1997 and 1998 Federal income
tax returns, specifically examining petitioner’s Schedule C horse
activity under the hobby loss rules of section 183. Respondent
determined that petitioner’s horse activity was not an activity
engaged in for profit and disallowed losses taken from that
activity. Petitioner filed a petition with this Court at docket
No. 10918-02 contesting respondent’s determination. On February
22, 2005, Judge Laro entered his decision for respondent. See
Giles v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-28. Petitioner appealed
to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed
the case on August 11, 2005.
3. The Years in Issue
Petitioner timely filed Federal income tax returns for the
years in issue. These returns were prepared by Mr. Wessman.
Attached to each return was a Schedule C listing “breeding &
competing horses” as the principal business and “Falling Water
Arabians” as the business name.
In 1999, petitioner deducted a Schedule C loss of $22,777
and reported adjusted gross income of $106,583. On the attached
Schedule C, petitioner reported gross income of $900 and total
expenses of $23,677.
In 2000, petitioner deducted a Schedule C loss of $17,649
and reported adjusted gross income of $95,291. On the attached
- 15 -
Schedule C, petitioner reported gross income of $1,000 and total
expenses of $17,649.
In 2001, petitioner reported Schedule C income of $209 and
adjusted gross income of $145,683. On the attached Schedule C,
petitioner reported gross income of $20,000 and total expenses of
$19,791.
On March 3, 2003, respondent sent petitioner an initial
contact letter asking her to produce books, records, and work
papers used to prepare her Schedule C for 1999. Petitioner did
not produce any books, records, or other work papers in response
to the initial contact letter. Respondent subsequently expanded
the examination to include 2000 and 2001.
On March 18, 2003, respondent sent petitioner a 30-day
letter covering 1999, 2000, and 2001. Petitioner was given the
opportunity to sign a period of limitations extension, but
refused to do so. At the time, petitioner had already filed a
petition with this Court relating to 1997 and 1998. Petitioner
wished to add the 1999, 2000, and 2001 years to the prior case.
In an effort to consolidate the cases, petitioner forewent the
administrative appeal process for the years in issue. The cases
were never consolidated.
On June 26, 2003, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of
deficiency for the years in issue. Respondent determined that
petitioner’s horse activity expenses were not ordinary and
- 16 -
necessary business expenses. Respondent disallowed petitioner’s
Schedule C losses of $22,777 and $17,649 for 1999 and 2000,
respectively. Respondent also disallowed petitioner’s Schedule C
expenses of $19,791 for 2001. Respondent determined deficiencies
of $7,117, $5,470, and $6,793 for 1999, 2000, and 2001,
respectively. In addition, respondent determined petitioner was
liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for
the years in issue.
On September 9, 2003, petitioner filed a petition with the
Court disputing the notice of deficiency.
OPINION
A. Petitioner’s Horse Activity
The first issue for decision is whether petitioner’s horse
activity was an activity engaged in for profit within the meaning
of section 183 during the years in issue.9
Section 183(a) provides that if an individual engages in an
activity but does not engage in that activity for profit, “no
deduction attributable to such activity shall be allowed under
this chapter except as provided in this section.” In the case of
9
Generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving the
Commissioner’s determinations incorrect. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). However, under sec.
7491(a), the burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner in
certain situations. Petitioner contends that sec. 7491(a)
requires respondent to bear the burden of proof. We need not
decide this issue because our findings and analysis in this case
are based on the record before the Court and do not depend on
which party bears the burden of proof.
- 17 -
an activity not engaged in for profit, section 183(b)(1) allows
deductions which are otherwise allowable without regard to
whether the activity is engaged in for profit. Section 183(b)(2)
allows deductions that would be allowable if the activity were
engaged in for profit, but only to the extent of gross income
received from the activity. 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.”10
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an
appeal of this case would lie absent stipulation otherwise, has
held that for a deduction to be allowed under section 162 or
section 212(1) or (2), the taxpayer must establish that she
engaged in the activity with “the predominant, primary or
principal objective” of realizing an economic profit independent
of tax savings. Wolf v. Commissioner, 4 F.3d 709, 713 (9th Cir.
1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-212; see also Skeen v. Commissioner,
864 F.2d 93, 94 (9th Cir. 1988)), affg. Patin v. Commissioner, 88
10
Sec. 162 allows a taxpayer to deduct ordinary and
necessary expenses of carrying on the taxpayer’s trade or
business. Pars. (1) and (2) of sec. 212 allow the taxpayer to
deduct expenses incurred in connection with an activity engaged
in for the production or collection of income, or for the
management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the
production of income.
- 18 -
T.C. 1086 (1987); Indep. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Commissioner, 781
F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. Lahr v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1984-472.
Factors to be considered in determining whether an activity
is engaged in for profit include: (1) The manner in which the
taxpayer carries on the activity, (2) the expertise of the
taxpayer or her 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 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) the elements of personal pleasure or
recreation. Indep. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at
726-727; Antonides v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 686, 694 n.4 (1988),
affd. 893 F.2d 656 (4th Cir. 1990); Golanty v. Commissioner, 72
T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d
170 (9th Cir. 1981); sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs. No single
factor or group of factors is determinative. Golanty v.
Commissioner, supra at 426; Dunn v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 715,
720 (1978), affd. 615 F.2d 578 (2d Cir. 1980); sec. 1.183-2(b),
Income Tax Regs. A final determination is made only after
considering all facts and circumstances. Indep. Elec. Supply,
- 19 -
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 727; Antonides v. Commissioner,
supra at 694; Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 426.
“The proper focus of the test * * * is the taxpayer’s
subjective intent. * * * However, objective indicia may be used
to establish that intent.” Skeen v. Commissioner, supra at 94;
see also Wolf v. Commissioner, supra at 713; Indep. Elec. Supply,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 726. The expectation of making a
profit need not be reasonable. Beck v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
557, 569 (1985); Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645
(1982), affd. without opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983);
Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 425-426. However, greater
weight is given to objective facts than to a taxpayer’s self-
serving statement of intent. Indep. Elec. Supply, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra; Antonides v. Commissioner, supra; Thomas v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1244, 1269 (1985), affd. 792 F.2d 1256 (4th
Cir. 1986).
Respondent determined that petitioner did not engage in her
horse activity with an intent to derive a profit and therefore
disallowed the Schedule C loss deductions. Petitioner contends
that she engaged in her horse activity with an intent to derive a
profit and is therefore entitled to deduct from her gross income
Schedule C losses relating to that activity. To make our
determination, we address the nine factors found in section
1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.
- 20 -
1. Manner in Which Petitioner Carried On the Horse
Activity
To determine whether a taxpayer carried on an activity in a
businesslike manner, three subfactors may be considered. Sec.
1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
a. Complete and Accurate Books and Records
The fact that the taxpayer carries on the activity in a
businesslike manner and maintains complete and accurate books and
records may indicate that the activity is engaged in for profit.
Elliott v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 960, 972 (1988), affd. without
published opinion 899 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1990); Engdahl v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659, 666 (1979); sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income
Tax Regs.
Petitioner asserts that she kept complete and accurate books
and records and argues that respondent’s concession that she
substantiated her Schedule C expenses so indicates. Annual
profit and loss statements were introduced into evidence for the
years 1988 through 2003, including the years in issue. These
statements were prepared by Ms. Pope and used by Mr. Wessman to
prepare petitioner’s Schedules C.
Although petitioner’s annual profit and loss statements were
sufficient to substantiate her Schedule C expenses, these
statements are not indicative that the horse activity was carried
on for profit for the purposes of section 1.183-2(b)(1), Income
Tax Regs. This Court has stated:
- 21 -
The purpose of maintaining books and records is more
than to memorialize for tax purposes the existence of
the subject transactions; it is to facilitate a means
of periodically determining profitability and analyzing
expenses such that proper cost saving measures might be
implemented in a timely and efficient manner. * * *
Burger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-523, affd. 809 F.2d 355
(7th Cir. 1987); see also Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 430;
McKeever v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-288; Wesinger v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-372. Even though a sophisticated
accounting system is not necessary, “the usage of cost accounting
techniques that, at a minimum, provide the entrepreneur with the
information he requires to make informed business decisions” is
essential. Burger v. Commissioner, supra; see also Golanty v.
Commissioner, supra; McKeever v. Commissioner, supra; Wesinger v.
Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner introduced no evidence that she kept track of
expenses throughout the year. The statements categorized
expenses, but her records did not break down the expenses by
horse, by month, or by any other means. Further, the record is
devoid of any evidence that petitioner used the statements in
making decisions about the operation of her horse activity. We
find that petitioner’s annual profit and loss statements were
nothing more than records compiled at the end of each year and
used exclusively to prepare her Schedules C. Petitioner did not
use the statements to make informed business decisions.
This subfactor weighs in favor of respondent’s position.
- 22 -
b. Conduct Substantially Similar to That of Other
Profitable Activities
When the taxpayer conducts the activity in a manner
substantially similar to that of other activities of the same
nature which are profitable, a profit motive may be indicated.
Engdahl v. Commissioner, supra at 666-667; sec. 1.183-2(b)(1),
Income Tax Regs. Petitioner presented no evidence on how
profitable horse breeding operations are run. However, generally
relevant indicators may include advertising, maintaining a
separate business bank account, developing a written business
plan, and having a plausible strategy for earning a profit. See
Morley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-312; Butler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-408; De Mendoza v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-314; Ellis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-50.
In the 11 years prior to the years in issue, petitioner
deducted less than $2,800 of advertising and promotion costs.
During the years in issue, petitioner did not advertise in trade
magazines, journals, or other publications, and she deducted no
advertising or promotional costs on her Schedules C. Petitioner
testified that she felt showing horses was the best form of
advertising and used competitions as her primary method of
promotion.
The Court recognizes that showing horses may be one method
of advertising. However, given that petitioner’s activity is
breeding and selling horses, and that petitioner sold only one
- 23 -
horse from 1988 through 2003, we find that her failure to
advertise in an attempt to reach a larger customer base is not
consistent with a profit motive. See Dodge v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-89, affd. without published opinion 188 F.3d 507 (6th
Cir. 1999).
Petitioner maintains a separate bank account under the names
Elizabeth Giles and Falling Water Arabians. However, it is clear
from the record that petitioner did not use the account in
conducting her horse activity. From December 16, 1998, to
December 3, 2001, petitioner made a single withdrawal of $240,
not including the monthly deductions for maintenance fees. The
purpose of the withdrawal was not identified in the record. In
addition, Ms. Pope testified that the canceled checks she used to
prepare petitioner’s annual profit and loss statements were not
from the Elizabeth Giles and Falling Water Arabians bank account.
During the years in issue, there were only two deposits into
the account. On May 5, 2001, petitioner deposited $9 in order to
restore a positive account balance. On December 4, 2001,
petitioner deposited $20,000 received from the sale of Bogaz.
Petitioner invested the $20,000 in an individual retirement
account, which is clearly not related to her horse activity. On
the basis of the above, we find that petitioner did not maintain
the bank account in a businesslike manner.
- 24 -
Petitioner and Ms. Pope prepared annual business plans for
the years 1989 through 1994 and one undated general business
plan. These plans were on fill-in-the-blank forms with hand-
written responses. In each plan, petitioner listed as a long-
term goal to sell horses. In her 1991 through 1994 plans,
petitioner stated that her goal was to move her horse activity to
Gavilan Hills.
While petitioner had business plans for previous years, she
had no business plans for the years in issue. Petitioner
introduced no evidence that she referred to the business plans
during the years in issue. Despite petitioner’s stated goal of
selling horses, petitioner sold only one horse in 2001, 7 years
after the last business plan was prepared. Despite petitioner’s
stated goal of moving her horse activity to Gavilan Hills, from
1991 through the years in issue petitioner took no meaningful
steps to make the property suitable for accommodating the
activity. We find that no positive inference can be drawn from
petitioner’s business plans.
Petitioner continually asserts that she is in the business
of breeding and selling horses and intends to make a profit.
Since 1989, petitioner has bred only Borissa. In that time,
Borissa’s 1990 foal died in 1991, she was not bred from 1992
through 1996, her 1998 foal died at birth, and she was not able
to conceive by artificial insemination in 1999. In 15 years,
- 25 -
Borissa has produced only two surviving horses, Bogaz and
Censuous. Despite the many breeding problems, petitioner
testified that she considered Borissa to be her best breeding
mare.
Petitioner also testified that she intends to offer services
to third parties, including training, coaching, and boarding.
Yet since 1988, petitioner has offered no such services. In
addition, the zoning restrictions at Falling Water Way and
Gavilan Hills prohibit petitioner from operating boarding or
livery stables on the properties. Petitioner has pointed to
nothing else from which she intends to derive a profit. On the
basis of these facts, we find that petitioner does not have a
plausible strategy for earning a profit.
Petitioner has introduced no evidence that she operated her
horse activity in a manner similar to that of profitable horse-
breeding businesses. None of the generally relevant indicators
described above could lead us to conclude that petitioner
operates her horse activity in a manner consistent with a
profitable venture of any type. This subfactor weighs heavily in
favor of respondent’s position.
c. Changes To Improve Profitability
When a taxpayer changes operating methods, adopts new
techniques, or abandons unprofitable methods in a manner
- 26 -
consistent with an intent to improve profitability, a profit
motive may be indicated. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner argues that she has changed her methods over the
years in an effort to improve profitability. To advance this
argument, petitioner testified that: (1) From 1992 through 1996,
she stopped breeding her horses because she perceived a downturn
in the Arabian horse market; (2) she began vaccinating, worming,
and performing other basic veterinary services to save money; and
(3) in 2001, she switched show disciplines to dressage because
she felt dressage was becoming more popular.
Petitioner introduced no evidence to corroborate her
testimony that there was a downturn in the Arabian horse market
in the mid-1990s. Even if we accept petitioner’s statements as
fact, the halt in her breeding activity would not weigh in her
favor. Petitioner reported the following total expenses from her
horse activity on her Schedules C:
- 27 -
Year Total Expenses
1988 $27,782
1989 32,244
1990 38,197
1991 28,136
1992 32,545
1993 46,622
1994 38,152
1995 40,703
1996 40,337
1997 24,475
1998 21,568
1999 23,677
2000 18,649
2001 19,791
2002 27,072
2003 23,621
During the period that petitioner stopped breeding her horses,
her total annual expenses were actually higher than during most
years in which she was breeding them. Petitioner testified that
she felt breeding would be unprofitable during the perceived
downturn. However, petitioner did not state how, if at all, her
decision would decrease expenses or otherwise improve
profitability.
In her 1993 annual business plan, petitioner indicated that
she could lower costs by performing basic veterinary work. It is
unclear from the record when petitioner began performing this
work. On petitioner’s Schedules C, she reported the following
veterinary expenses:
- 28 -
Year Veterinary Expenses
1988 $222
1989 1,304
1990 3,410
1991 1,803
1992 2,434
1993 899
1994 5,322
1995 2,377
1996 1,272
1997 1,382
1998 1,453
1999 2,614
2000 1,731
2001 947
2002 3,101
2003 1,398
There is no discernable pattern to the reported veterinary
expenses that would indicate veterinary costs decreased as a
result of petitioner’s performing some veterinary services on her
own.
Petitioner testified that, in 2001, she switched show
disciplines from western pleasure and trail to dressage because
she perceived a greater demand for dressage horses. Petitioner
presented no evidence that corroborates her perception.
Petitioner did not indicate that her horses were marketed
differently or how the switch in show disciplines would otherwise
affect the profitability of petitioner’s horse activity.
On the basis of the above, we cannot infer that petitioner’s
decisions to halt breeding, perform veterinary services, or
switch show disciplines were made in a manner consistent with an
intent to improve profitability. Petitioner has not shown that
- 29 -
the changes had or will have a material impact on her horse
activity’s profitability. See Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C.
at 428 (changes must be sufficient to change materially the
prospect of profitability); McKeever v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-288. Accordingly, this subfactor weighs in favor of
respondent’s position.
d. Other Considerations
Petitioner has a Falling Water Arabians business card.
However, this card was prepared in the late 1980s, and the phone
numbers are no longer correct. The existence of an out-of-date
business card does not weigh in favor of petitioner’s position.
Petitioner keeps extensive records of health, certification,
and pedigree, as well as promotional materials used in picking
stallions to breed Borissa to, and correspondence with other
parties regarding her horse activity. However, the keeping of
these records is as consistent with a hobby as with a business.
See Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 430; Burger v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-523. The existence of these
records does not weigh in favor of petitioner’s position.
Petitioner argues that her decision to lease Borissa before
buying her evidences businesslike behavior. Petitioner
introduced no evidence that this is a common practice in
profitable horse-breeding businesses. This decision does not
weigh in favor of petitioner’s position.
- 30 -
e. Summary
Taking into consideration the above, we conclude that
petitioner did not operate her horse activity in a businesslike
manner. This factor weighs in favor of respondent’s position.
2. Expertise of Petitioner or Her Advisers
Preparation for an activity by extensive study of its
accepted business, economic, and scientific practices, or
consultation with those who are expert therein, may indicate a
profit motive. Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 668;
Lundquist v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-83, affd. 211 F.3d 600
(11th Cir. 2000); sec. 1.183-2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs. Efforts
to gain experience and a willingness to follow expert advice may
also indicate a profit motive. Dworshak v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-249; Lundquist v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner has been involved with raising and showing horses
since she was a child. Petitioner has consulted many
professionals regarding breeding and training horses, including
David Garrett and Lou Roper. In addition, petitioner has read
many books and publications regarding the breeding and training
of horses. While petitioner undoubtedly has expertise in
breeding and training, her expertise does not extend to the
economics of the undertaking.
Petitioner testified that, when she started her horse
activity, she had no idea how many Arabian horse breeders there
- 31 -
were in California. Petitioner presented no evidence that she
was aware of the state of the market or other factors that may
affect profitability. “While a formal market study is not
required, a basic investigation of the factors that would affect
profit is.” Burger v. Commissioner, supra; see also Golanty v.
Commissioner, supra at 432; Wesinger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1999-372.
Petitioner testified that she discussed aspects of her horse
activity with two C.P.A.s, Ms. Pope and Mr. Wessman, which their
testimony corroborated. However, it is unclear whether they
discussed anything more than petitioner’s expenses in preparing
the annual profit and loss statements and Schedules C. While Ms.
Pope and Mr. Wessman may have expertise in accounting, neither
testified to having experience in running a profitable horse-
breeding business. Since 1988, petitioner has not consulted with
experts regarding the economic aspects of running a profitable
horse-breeding business. Considering petitioner’s long history
of losses, this is not indicative of a profit motive. See
Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 432; Wesinger v. Commissioner,
supra; Hillman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-255; Dodge v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-89.
None of petitioner’s reference materials and publications
were devoted to the business aspects of horse breeding.
Petitioner testified that only one of the references in her
- 32 -
library might possibly contain information regarding the business
aspects of horse breeding. She further testified that some of
the monthly publications contained business information.
However, petitioner did not testify to how she used this
information, if at all, in her activity.
On the basis of the above, we conclude that petitioner was
not an expert and did not seek out expert advice regarding the
economic aspects of running a profitable horse-breeding business.
This factor weighs in favor of respondent’s position.
3. Time and Effort Petitioner Expended in Carrying
On the Activity
The fact that the taxpayer devotes much of her personal time
and effort to carrying on an activity may indicate an intention
to derive a profit, particularly if the activity does not have
substantial personal or recreational aspects. Golanty v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 426; Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-367, affd. 202 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 1999); Morley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-312;11 sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income
Tax Regs.
11
Petitioner places heavy emphasis on Morley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-312, where the Court held that the
taxpayer operated his horse activity for profit. Like
petitioner, Mr. Morley worked 4 days a week in his dental
practice and 7 days a week with his horse activity. However, the
present case is readily distinguishable. Among other
differences, Mr. Morley advertised, created promotional
materials, and was not involved in the recreational components of
horse ownership, specifically riding his horses, to any
significant extent.
- 33 -
Petitioner often spent 6 hours a day with her horse
activity. Petitioner argues that the activity does not have
substantial personal or recreational aspects. Petitioner places
heavy emphasis on the time spent feeding and watering her horses
and cleaning stalls.
Petitioner asserts that her horse activity did not have any
personal or recreational aspects. While the Court recognizes
that feeding and watering her horses and cleaning stalls may not
be enjoyable activities, unpleasant tasks associated with caring
for horses are required regardless of whether the activity is
pursued as a hobby or a business. See Sullivan v. Commissioner,
supra. Petitioner has ridden and shown horses since she was a
child. Though she does not ride in parades or attend social or
charity functions, petitioner certainly derives some personal
pleasure from riding and showing her horses. However, personal
pleasure derived from an activity will not turn a business into a
hobby. Jackson v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 312, 317 (1972); see
also McKeever v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-288.
Petitioner spends a significant amount of time with her
horse activity. Nevertheless, because the horse activity has
significant personal and recreational components, this factor is
neutral.
- 34 -
4. Expectation That Assets Used in the Activity May
Appreciate in Value
The expectation that assets used in the activity will
appreciate in value sufficiently to lead to an overall profit
when netted against losses may indicate a profit motive.
Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 668-669; Lapinel v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-685, affd. 930 F.2d 911 (2d Cir.
1991); sec. 1.183-2(b)(4), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner argues
that the appreciation of Falling Water Way and Gavilan Hills,
combined with the value of her horses, is significant enough to
offset all prior losses.
a. Falling Water Way and Gavilan Hills
Petitioner asserts that Falling Water Way and Gavilan Hills
are held in connection with her horse activity. Respondent, on
the other hand, argues that her holding of real property is an
activity separate from petitioner’s horse activity. To make this
determination, section 1.183-1(d)(1), Income Tax Regs., states:
all facts and circumstances * * * must be taken into
account. Generally, the most significant facts and
circumstances in making this determination are the
degree of organizational and economic interrelationship
of various undertakings, the business purpose which is
* * * served by carrying on the various undertakings
separately or together * * * and the similarity of
various undertakings. * * * The taxpayer’s
characterization will not be accepted * * * when it
appears that his characterization is artificial and
cannot be reasonably supported under the facts and
circumstances of the case. If the taxpayer engages in
two or more separate activities, deductions and income
from each separate activity are not aggregated either
- 35 -
in determining whether a particular activity is engaged
in for profit or in applying section 183. * * *
Falling Water Way is at the center of petitioner’s
horse activity. Her horses are kept on the property and are
bred, fed, and watered there. Petitioner testified that she
trains her horses in the arena at Falling Water Way.
However, Falling Water Way also includes petitioner’s four-
bedroom house and a garage unrelated to her horse activity.
With the exception of the house and the garage, we conclude
that Falling Water Way is a part of petitioner’s horse
activity. Therefore, any appreciation attributable to the
horse facilities and land at Falling Water Way may be taken
into consideration when determining whether petitioner
engaged in her horse activity for a profit.
Gavilan Hills is approximately 5 miles from Falling
Water Way. Even though petitioner has not made significant
improvements to the property since 1991, petitioner used
Gavilan Hills to exercise and train her horses throughout
the years in issue. Gavilan Hills was not used for any
purpose unrelated to petitioner’s horse activity. We
conclude that Gavilan Hills is a part of petitioner’s horse
activity. Therefore, any appreciation of Gavilan Hills may
be taken into consideration when determining whether
petitioner engaged in her horse activity for a profit.
- 36 -
b. Petitioner’s Horses
Petitioner’s only evidence of the fair market value of
her horses is based on the testimony of an expert witness,
Janine Esler (Ms. Esler). Ms. Esler is a professional horse
trainer, breeder, bloodstock agent, and business consultant.
She has trained Arabian horses since 1975. Her experience
is sufficient to qualify her as an expert in the Arabian
horse field. However, we find that Ms. Esler’s expert
report does not provide reliable valuations of petitioner’s
horses.
Rule 143(f) states that a witness’s expert report
“shall state the * * * opinion and the facts * * * on which
that opinion is based. The report shall set forth in detail
the reasons for the conclusion.” (Emphasis added.) In her
report, Ms. Esler did not disclose her method of valuation.
At trial, she testified that she used “comparable values of
horses”, but she could not be more specific. Ms. Esler
further testified that a horse’s pedigree, health condition,
training history, and performance history are all factors to
be considered in determining a horse’s fair market value,
yet these factors are not mentioned in her report. In
addition, Ms. Elser testified that it is important to view a
horse from all angles and to watch the horse walking both
towards and away from the observer. However, Ms. Esler
- 37 -
never personally observed two of the horses valued in her
report, TF Silent Reign and Mon Reve, instead relying on
still-shot photographs.
We find that Ms. Esler’s report does not comply with
Rule 143(f), as it fails to set out in detail the reasons
for her conclusions. We further find that Ms. Esler could
not adequately explain her report at trial and her answers
to many questions raise doubts as to the reliability of her
valuations.
Because petitioner introduced no other evidence
regarding the values of her horses, those values cannot be
considered in determining whether petitioner engaged in her
horse activity for profit.
c. Summary
As outlined above, the fair market value of Falling
Water Way and Gavilan Hills can be taken into account in
considering this factor. Petitioner purchased Falling Water
Way for $135,000 and Gavilan Hills for $70,000. As of June
15, 2004, the fair market value of the horse facilities and
land at Falling Water Way was $375,000, and the fair market
value of Gavilan Hills was $306,000. Falling Water Way and
Gavilan Hills have appreciated substantially, and petitioner
can reasonably expect the properties to continue to
appreciate. Therefore, we find that this factor weighs in
- 38 -
favor of petitioner’s position. It is important to note,
however, that “An unsuccessful horse-breeding operation
cannot be carried on forever simply because the price of
land in that general area is rising.” Lapinel v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-685.
5. Success of Petitioner in Carrying on Other Similar
or Dissimilar Activities
The fact that the taxpayer has engaged in similar
activities in the past and converted them to profitable
enterprises may indicate that she engaged in the present
activity for profit. Lundquist v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1999-83; De Mendoza v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-314;
sec. 1.183-2(b)(5), Income Tax Regs. While petitioner has a
long history of working with horses, she had not previously
engaged in a horse-breeding business. Petitioner runs a
successful dental practice, but she presented no evidence
that she operated her horse activity in a similarly
businesslike manner. See Dodge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-89. Accordingly, this factor is neutral.
6. Petitioners’ History of Income or Losses With
Respect to the Activity
A series of losses during the initial or startup stage
of an activity may not necessarily be an indication that the
activity is not engaged in for profit. Engdahl v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 669; sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax
- 39 -
Regs. However, losses that extend beyond the customary
startup stage may indicate that the activity is not engaged
in for profit. Engdahl v. Commissioner, supra at 669; sec.
1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.
From 1988 through 2000, and 2002 through 2003,
petitioner reported total Schedule C losses of $441,289. In
2001, petitioner reported a $209 profit from her horse
activity, due to the sale of Bogaz for $20,000.
Petitioner argues that the history of losses does not
indicate she lacked a profit motive because her activity is
in the startup stage. This Court has recognized that the
startup stage for a horse-breeding activity may be 5 to 10
years. Engdahl v. Commissioner, supra at 669; McKeever v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-288; Dodge v. Commissioner,
supra. Petitioner argues that her startup stage should be
extended because she encountered unforseen circumstances,
including the death of two foals in 1991 and 1998,
respectively, and the depressed Arabian horse market in the
mid-1990s.
The applicable regulations do not provide for an
extension of the startup stage on account of unforeseen
circumstances, and petitioner cites no caselaw to support
her argument. Instead, section 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax
Regs., states: “If losses are sustained because of
- 40 -
unforeseen or fortuitous circumstances which are beyond the
control of the taxpayer * * * such losses would not be an
indication that the activity is not engaged in for profit.”
Even if unforeseen circumstances beyond petitioner’s control
contributed to losses in earlier years, this does not
explain petitioner’s continued losses in 1999, 2000, 2002,
and 2003, nor does it justify extending the long-recognized
5- to 10-year startup stage.
Petitioner began her horse activity in 1988. If we
give her the full benefit of the recognized time period, the
startup stage of petitioner’s activity ended in 1997. In
the 6 subsequent years, petitioner reported losses totaling
$111,987, while reporting a profit in just 1 year of only
$209.
Petitioner also argues that her history of losses does
not indicate she lacked a profit motive because the losses
were steadily declining until 2001, when a profit was
achieved. From 1996 through 2000, petitioner’s losses
declined each year. In 1999 and 2000, petitioner reported
losses of $22,777 and $17,649, respectively. In 2001,
petitioner reported a profit of $209. However, in 2002 and
2003, petitioner reported losses of $27,072 and $23,421,
respectively. In other words, petitioner’s losses in 2002
and 2003 actually increased relative to her losses in 1999
- 41 -
and 2000. Petitioner’s losses after the years in issue only
confirm the general pattern of losses. See Dodge v.
Commissioner, supra. Given what has occurred since
petitioner reported a profit in 2001, no positive inference
can be made from the decline in losses before 2001.
Petitioner’s history of losses indicates that her horse
activity was not engaged in for profit. This factor weighs
heavily in favor of respondent’s position.
7. The Amount of Occasional Profits, If Any, Which
Are Earned
The amount of profits in relation to the amount of
losses incurred may provide a useful criterion in evaluating
whether the taxpayer engaged in the activity for profit.
McKeever v. Commissioner, supra; Dodge v. Commissioner,
supra; sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income Tax Regs. The regulations
go on to state:
substantial profit, though only occasional, would
generally be indicative that an activity is engaged in
for profit, where * * * losses are comparatively small.
Moreover, an opportunity to earn a substantial ultimate
profit in a highly speculative venture is ordinarily
sufficient to indicate that the activity is engaged in
for profit even though losses or only occasional small
profits are actually generated.
Sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income Tax Regs. (emphasis added).
Petitioner has not generated a “substantial” profit.
In the 16 years petitioner has operated her horse activity,
she reported a profit in 1 year of only $209, compared to
- 42 -
total losses of $441,289. The size of her losses compared
to only a small profit is not indicative of a profit motive.
Petitioner argues that she has the opportunity to earn
a substantial ultimate profit through the sale of
potentially valuable horses. Petitioner introduced evidence
that horses of the bloodlines she used in breeding Borissa
have sold for $300,000, $150,000, $140,000, and $120,000.
Petitioner also testified that some purebred Arabian
stallions have been syndicated for multimillion dollar
values. A taxpayer’s belief that she could one day sell a
horse for a substantial amount of revenue and a
correspondingly large profit may be indicative of a profit
motive if that belief is adequately supported. See McKeever
v. Commissioner, supra; Dawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-417. However, petitioner has never produced a horse of
the caliber that would generate such substantial revenue.
Under the circumstances of this case, the possibility of a
highly speculative profit is insufficient to outweigh the
substantial losses and relatively minuscule gain over a 16-
year period. See McKeever v. Commissioner, supra.
This factor weighs in favor of respondent’s position.
8. The Financial Status of Petitioner
Substantial income from sources other than the activity
may indicate that the taxpayer is not engaged in the
- 43 -
activity for profit, particularly if the losses generate
substantial tax benefits. Engdahl v. Commissioner, supra at
669-670; sec. 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner is a dentist and runs her own dental
practice as a professional corporation. From 1988 through
2003, petitioner received wage income from her professional
corporation averaging $109,547 annually. In addition, since
1997, petitioner has reported average annual rental income
of $7,871.
Despite her significant sources of current income,
petitioner argues that her lack of investments and other
resources on which to retire indicate that she is running
her horse activity for profit. Petitioner testified that
she is not the owner or beneficiary of any trusts,
annuities, or pension plans, and her only investments
consist of an individual retirement account worth less than
$25,000 and stocks and bonds worth less than $20,000.
Petitioner further testified that she intended her horse
activity to be her source of retirement income.
In making this argument, petitioner disregards the
value of her real property. As of June 15, 2004, the
combined fair market value of Falling Water Way and Gavilan
Hills was $836,000. The fair market value of the Rialto
- 44 -
property is not in the record.12 In addition, petitioner
disregards the value of her professional corporation, of
which she is the sole shareholder.
While the Court recognizes that, as long as tax rates
are less than 100 percent, there is no “benefit” to losing
money, see Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 670,
deducting these losses significantly reduced the after-tax
cost of petitioner’s horse activity, see Hillman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-255; Sullivan v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-367. Given the after-tax economics of
petitioner’s activity, petitioner’s significant annual wage
and rental income supports an inference that the activity
was not engaged in for profit. This factor weighs in favor
of respondent’s position.
9. Elements of Personal Pleasure or Recreation
The presence of personal or recreational motives in
conducting an activity may indicate that the taxpayer is not
conducting the activity for profit. McKeever v.
Commissioner, supra; sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs.
However, the fact that the taxpayer derives personal
pleasure from engaging in the activity does not show that
the taxpayer lacks a profit objective if the activity is, in
12
Petitioner did not establish to what extent, if any,
these properties are encumbered.
- 45 -
fact, conducted for profit as evidenced by other factors.
Sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs.
Despite petitioner’s testimony that her horse activity
did not have any personal or recreational aspects,
petitioner certainly derives some personal pleasure from
riding and showing her horses, as discussed above. However,
this does not, by itself, indicate that petitioner lacked a
profit motive. Accordingly, this factor is neutral.
Conclusion
Petitioner repeatedly testified that she intended to
derive a profit from her horse activity and wished to use
the activity as her source for retirement income.
Petitioner’s assertions, however, are not supported by the
facts. In 16 years of operation, petitioner had 1
profitable year. Despite continual heavy losses, petitioner
did not seek out expert advice, or attempt to educate
herself, on the economic aspects of running a profitable
horse-breeding business. Petitioner did not operate the
activity in a businesslike manner. In addition, if not for
her significant annual wage and rental income, petitioner
would have been unable to continue the horse activity at a
loss year after year. The only factor weighing in favor of
petitioner, the appreciation of Falling Water Way and
- 46 -
Gavilan Hills, is not significant enough to overcome the
other factors.
For these and all other reasons stated herein, we find
that petitioner’s horse activity was not engaged in for
profit within the meaning of section 183. Therefore,
respondent’s determination that petitioner may not deduct
losses from that activity is sustained.
B. Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Section 6662
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for
accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1999
and 2000.13 Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty in the amount
of 20 percent on the portion of the underpayment to which
the section applies. As relevant to this case, the penalty
applies to any portion of the underpayment that is
attributable to any substantial understatement of income
tax. Sec. 6662(b)(2). There is a “substantial
understatement of income tax” if the amount of the
understatement exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax
required to be shown on the tax return or $5,000. Sec.
6662(d)(1)
Section 7491(c) requires the Commissioner to carry the
burden of production with regard to penalties. Higbee v.
13
As previously noted, respondent has conceded that
petitioner is not liable for an accuracy-related penalty for
2001.
- 47 -
Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). Once the burden of
production is met, the taxpayer must come forward with
sufficient evidence that the penalty does not apply. Id. at
447.
The tax required to be shown on petitioner’s tax
returns was $26,378 and $19,845, for 1999 and 2000,
respectively. Because 10 percent of the tax required to be
shown is less than $5,000, petitioner’s understatements are
substantial if they exceed $5,000. Petitioner reported
income tax liabilities of $19,261 and $14,375, resulting in
understatements of $7,117 and $5,470 for 1999 and 2000,
respectively. Respondent has satisfied his burden by
showing that petitioner’s understatements of tax, which
exceeded $5,000, were substantial.
The accuracy-related penalty is not imposed, however,
with respect to any portion of the understatement if the
taxpayer can establish that she acted with reasonable cause
and in good faith. Sec. 6664(c)(1). The decision as to
whether the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good
faith depends upon all the pertinent facts and
circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Circumstances indicating that a taxpayer acted with
reasonable cause and in good faith include “an honest
misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light
- 48 -
of all of the facts and circumstances, including the
experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer.” Id.
Petitioner asserts that she acted with reasonable cause
and in good faith, pointing out that: (1) In 1994,
petitioner was audited “on this same issue for the same
business” and received a no-change letter; and (2)
petitioner consulted with Mr. Wessman, a C.P.A., who
prepared her Federal income tax returns for the years in
issue.
While petitioner did receive a no-change letter with
respect to her horse activity during 1991 and 1992, the
audit focused on the passive activity rules of section 469.
Because this case focuses on the hobby loss rules of section
183, the no-change letter received in 1994 cannot serve as a
basis for reasonable cause.
Reliance upon the advice of an expert tax preparer may
demonstrate that a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and
good faith in the context of section 6662(a). Freytag v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 849, 888 (1987), affd. 904 F.2d 1011
(5th Cir. 1990), affd. 501 U.S. 868 (1991); see sec. 1.6664-
4(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner provided Mr. Wessman
with the annual profit and loss statements prepared by Ms.
Pope. Respondent has conceded that these statements were
adequate to substantiate all of petitioner’s claimed
- 49 -
expenses for the years in issue. Mr. Wessman’s testimony
that petitioner provided him with all the necessary
information is bolstered by respondent’s concession. Mr.
Wessman further testified that he believed petitioner’s
returns were correct as filed. Petitioner credibly
testified that she relied on Mr. Wessman in determining the
tax treatment of her horse activity.
Petitioner did not produce any books, records, or other
work papers in response to respondent’s initial contact
letter. Additionally, petitioner did not agree to extend
the period of limitations or participate in the appeal
process. However, Mr. Wessman credibly testified that such
actions were taken in order to expedite the review process
so that the years in issue could be consolidated with the
prior Tax Court case. Given the circumstances, we find
petitioner did not act in bad faith.
We conclude that petitioner acted with reasonable cause
and in good faith. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is
not liable for the accuracy-related penalties under section
6662(a).
In reaching our holdings, we have considered all
arguments and contentions made, and, to the extent not
mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or
without merit.
- 50 -
To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the
parties,
Decision will be
entered under Rule 155.