T.C. Memo. 2011-167
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RONALD J. ZENZEN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 28268-09. Filed July 12, 2011.
Ronald J. Zenzen, pro se.
Tracie M. Knapp, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SWIFT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner’s 2005, 2006, and 2007 Federal income taxes of $4,062,
$6,571, and $15,409, respectively.
The issue for decision is whether petitioner’s drag racing
activity is to be treated as an activity engaged in for profit
- 2 -
under section 183(a). The trial of this case was held on
February 28, 2011, in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At
the time his petition was filed, petitioner resided in Minnesota.
For over 35 years and during the years in issue petitioner
worked full time as a mechanic for Xcel Energy (formerly known as
Northern States Power). During the years in issue petitioner’s
annual salary was approximately $68,000. The combined total
salaries of petitioner and his wife were $115,944 in 2005,
$116,979 in 2006, and $168,739 in 2007.
Around 1970 petitioner began participating in drag racing as
a volunteer crew member and mechanic, volunteering with various
racing teams and gaining experience and knowledge. Between 1970
and 1988 petitioner received no compensation for his drag racing
activities. During these years petitioner owned a transporter
which he used to move drag racing cars to racing events.
In 1988 petitioner purchased his first drag racing car and
began racing it himself.
- 3 -
In 1998 petitioner established his own drag racing team with
his two children. Petitioner and his two children were the only
members of petitioner’s drag racing team and were the only
individuals who conducted maintenance on and raced petitioner’s
drag racing cars.
In 1999 petitioner purchased a 1978 Chevrolet Corvette for
$10,000 to race.
In 2004 petitioner purchased a 1989 Chevrolet IROC-Z28 for
$11,000, also to race. Petitioner replaced this car’s engine
with a used 305 stock car motor, which cost petitioner $7,500.
In 2008 petitioner sold this car for $17,250. Also in 2004
petitioner purchased a new transporter to haul his drag racing
cars to races and to use as an office and sleeping space when
petitioner’s racing team competed away from home.
In 2005 petitioner made some improvements to his racing cars
and acquired various other assets to be used in connection with
his drag racing activity.
At no time did petitioner have a written business plan for
his drag racing, and he did not maintain a general ledger, annual
budget and expense forecasts, or a separate bank account relating
to his drag racing activity. Petitioner merely saved receipts
reflecting his drag racing expenses.
- 4 -
At no time before 2005 or during the years in issue did
petitioner speak with a business adviser about ways to make a
profit in drag racing.
Petitioner took several steps to improve his team’s
performance in local, regional, and national drag racing
competitions. In 2007 petitioner purchased a 1987 Chevrolet
Camaro for $29,400 to race. After purchasing this car,
petitioner established regular communication with the car’s
builder, who advised petitioner on improving the car’s
performance. Petitioner communicated with Hi-Performance Engine
Services (Hi-Performance), a nationally regarded builder of race
car engines, for advice, parts, and service relating to his cars.
Petitioner did not pay Hi-Performance for its advice.
During race seasons petitioner and his children would spend
about 30 hours per week preparing the race cars. This time was
in addition to the time spent participating in weekend races.
During the off-season petitioner and his children would
spend about 20 hours per week working on the race cars.
Occasionally, petitioner had the engines in his race cars
“refreshened” to increase performance. Petitioner approximates
that $15,000 was spent in each of the years in issue to refresh
the engines.
Through his drag racing activity, petitioner was able to
spend a significant amount of time with his children, which
- 5 -
brought him personal pleasure. Petitioner did not pay his
children for their involvement in petitioner’s drag racing
activity, and all winnings from race events were used in the
maintenance of the racing cars and the transporter.
During the years in issue petitioner did not receive any
income from commercial sponsors for his drag racing cars.
However, petitioner’s drag racing cars each displayed 24 to 30
“contingency sponsor” decals. The owner of a race car with that
number of contingency sponsor decals who wins a national drag
racing event would receive approximately $12,000, and for a
second-place finish, $4,500. For a first-place finish at a
divisional event, the owner would receive approximately $4,000,
and for a second-place finish, $2,000.1
During the years in issue the only income petitioner
received from his drag racing activity came from race winnings
which petitioner’s team occasionally won at various local,
divisional, and national racing events. Petitioner did not
receive any income from contingency sponsors for any of the years
in issue. The following table summarizes all of petitioner’s
drag racing income during the years in issue:
1
These amounts apparently reflect both contingency awards
and purse winnings from a race.
- 6 -
Race
Date Type of Event Income
5/5/05 Local $100
7/22/05 Local 600
9/5/05 Local 150
5/20/06 Local 200
6/23/06 Local 250
8/13/06 National 400
9/2/06 Local 100
7/27/07 Local 200
8/23/07 Divisional 150
Before filing his 2005 Federal income tax return, petitioner
spoke with his accountant, Joan Jaye, to determine whether to
file a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, in connection
with his drag racing activity. Specifically, petitioner and Ms.
Jaye discussed the nine factors under section 1.183-2(b), Income
Tax Regs. As a result of this discussion, petitioner decided to
file a Schedule C in connection with his 2005, 2006, and 2007
Federal income tax returns.
Petitioner timely filed his 2005, 2006, and 2007 Federal
income tax returns. As noted, petitioner attached to each of
these returns a Schedule C claiming income and expenses relating
to petitioner’s drag racing activity as follows:
Schedule C
Net Profit
Year Income Expenses or Loss
2005 $850 $25,044 ($24,194)
2006 950 34,702 (33,752)
2007 350 60,064 (59,714)
On audit respondent disallowed in full petitioner’s claimed
Schedule C drag racing losses on the basis that petitioner was
- 7 -
not engaged in the drag racing activity with the intent to make a
profit. Respondent recharacterized expenses relating to
petitioner’s drag racing activity as nondeductible personal
expenditures.
OPINION
Section 162(a) allows deductions for all ordinary and
necessary expenses paid or incurred during a taxable year in
carrying on a trade or business. In the case of an activity not
engaged in for profit, section 183 generally limits allowable
deductions attributable to the activity to the extent of gross
income generated by the activity. Sec. 183(b).
The test for determining whether a taxpayer is carrying on
an activity for profit is whether the taxpayer’s actual and
honest objective in engaging in the activity is to make a profit.
See Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd.
without published opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Although the taxpayer’s expectation of profit need not be
reasonable, it must be a good-faith expectation. See Allen v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 28, 33 (1979); sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax
Regs. Greater weight is to be given to objective facts than to a
taxpayer’s statement of intent. See Dreicer v. Commissioner,
supra at 645; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., provides a
nonexhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining
- 8 -
whether an activity is engaged in for profit. No single factor
or set of factors is controlling, nor is the existence of a
majority of factors favoring or disfavoring a profit objective.
Keating v. Commissioner, 544 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir. 2008), affg.
T.C. Memo. 2007-309; see also Osteen v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d
356, 358 (11th Cir. 1995), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C.
Memo. 1993-519. Petitioner bears the burden of proof on this
issue.2 See Rule 142(a); Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411,
426 (1979), affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th
Cir. 1981).
We discuss below each factor as applied to petitioner’s drag
racing activity.
Manner in Which the Taxpayer Carried On the Activity--Sec. 1.183-
2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Elements relevant to this factor include whether the
taxpayer maintained complete and accurate books and records,
whether the taxpayer conducted the activity in a manner
substantially similar to comparable businesses that are
profitable, and whether changes were attempted in order to
improve profitability. Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659,
666-667 (1979); Emerson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-137.
2
Petitioner has neither claimed nor shown that he has
satisfied the requirements of sec. 7491(a) to shift the burden of
proof to respondent with regard to any factual issue.
- 9 -
Petitioner argues that in 2005 he attempted to convert his
racing activity into a for-profit business venture.3
Petitioner, however, did not maintain books or written records,
had no formal business plan, and did not create annual budget and
expense forecasts relating to drag racing. Although a taxpayer
is not required to maintain a sophisticated system of accounting,
the taxpayer should keep documents that allow the taxpayer to
make informed business decisions. Burger v. Commissioner, 809
F.2d 355, 359 (7th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-523; see
also Whitener v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-415 (taxpayer who
kept no business books or records did not conduct his stock car
racing activity in a businesslike manner).
Petitioner saved receipts from expenses relating to his drag
racing; however, there is no evidence that petitioner used these
receipts as a management tool to reduce expenses or increase
profitability. Petitioner offered no evidence of how comparable
profitable businesses operate. This factor weighs against
petitioner.
Expertise of the Taxpayer or His Advisors--Sec. 1.183-2(b)(2),
Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner had extensive experience with drag racing; he has
been involved in the activity in various capacities for over 40
years. During the years in issue petitioner sought advice on
3
Petitioner concedes that before 2005 he engaged in the drag
racing activity essentially as a hobby.
- 10 -
ways to improve the performance of his drag racing cars.
However, the focus here is on expertise and preparation with
regard to the economic aspects of the activity. Wesinger v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-372. Petitioner has not shown that
he possessed the requisite expertise regarding the business
aspects of drag racing or that he relied on anyone who had that
expertise. The fact that petitioner did not seek advice on the
economic aspects of his drag racing activity suggests that
petitioner lacked a profit objective. See Filios v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-92, affd. 224 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.
2000). This factor favors respondent.
Time and Effort Expended in Carrying On the Activity--Sec. 1.183-
2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner dedicated a significant amount of time and effort
to his drag racing activity. While this fact tends to favor
petitioner’s position, petitioner also derived substantial
personal enjoyment from drag racing. For over 30 years
petitioner considered drag racing a hobby--it is unlikely that in
2005, 2006, and 2007 petitioner ceased to derive similar
enjoyment from the activity. Petitioner found personal pleasure
in traveling to weekend race events, watching his team
participate in events, and developing friendships with
individuals involved in drag racing. The time petitioner devoted
to his drag racing activity was also time petitioner spent with
his children. On balance, we find that this factor is neutral.
- 11 -
Expectation That Assets May Appreciate in Value--Sec. 1.183-
2(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner claims that, as a result of maintenance and
improvements petitioner and his team made to petitioner’s drag
racing cars, petitioner expected his cars to appreciate in value.
Petitioner directs our attention to his Chevrolet IROC-Z28, which
petitioner purchased in 2004 for $11,000 and sold in 2008 for
$17,250. Petitioner claims that he sold this car at a gain, even
after the cost of the replacement engine and other improvements
he made. We have held, however, that when property’s
appreciation in value is independent of the claimed business
activity, the gain realized from a sale of the property will not
be a significant factor in evaluating the nature of the activity
in question. Spear v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-354; Wright
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-630; Ruben v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1986-260, affd. without published opinion 852 F.2d 1290
(9th Cir. 1988). Petitioner has failed to show how the increase
in value of this car--or, for that matter, of any other asset--is
attributable to petitioner’s success in drag racing activity
rather than to the value of petitioner’s labor. This factor
favors respondent.
- 12 -
Success of Taxpayer in Other Activities--Sec. 1.183-2(b)(5),
Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner was not involved in any other business activities
apart from his employment with Xcel Energy. This factor favors
respondent.
Taxpayer’s History of Income or Losses--Sec. 1.183-2(b)(6),
Income Tax Regs.
A series of losses during the startup period of an activity
is not necessarily an indication that the activity is not engaged
in for profit, bearing in mind, however, that the objective must
be to realize a profit on the entire operation–-future net
earnings and also enough earnings to recoup losses that have been
incurred in intervening years. Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45
T.C. 261, 274 (1965), affd. 379 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1967); Emerson
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-137.
During the years in issue petitioner received only $2,150 in
cash awards while spending $117,660 on his racing activity.
Petitioner’s losses increased substantially from 2005 to 2006,
and even more substantially from 2006 to 2007. On the basis of
petitioner’s record of significant losses, we find it unlikely
that petitioner will be able to recoup his expenditures. This
factor favors respondent.
- 13 -
Amount of Occasional Profits, If Any--Sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income
Tax Regs.
With the exception of the occasional small cash awards
petitioner received, petitioner’s drag racing activity produced
no income.
An opportunity to earn a substantial ultimate profit in a
highly speculative venture may be sufficient to indicate that an
activity is engaged in for profit. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income
Tax Regs. Drag racing is unquestionably a highly speculative
venture. Petitioner, however, has not convinced us that he had a
real opportunity to earn a profit in his drag racing activity.
The losses petitioner incurred in connection with his drag
racing activity were over 54 times the amount of income earned.
This factor favors respondent.
Financial Status of the Taxpayer--Sec. 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax
Regs.
“The rationale for this rule is that a taxpayer with
substantial income unrelated to the activity can more easily
afford to operate the activity as a hobby.” Emerson v.
Commissioner, supra.
During the years in issue petitioner worked full time at
Xcel Energy, earning an annual salary of $68,000, and the
combined total wages of petitioner and his wife during each of
- 14 -
the years in issue exceeded $115,000.4 Substantial income from
sources unrelated to the activity in question--particularly if
losses from the activity generate substantial tax benefits--may
indicate that an activity is not engaged in for profit. Sec.
1.183-2(b)(B), Income Tax Regs. This factor favors respondent.
Elements of Personal Pleasure--Sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax
Regs.
It is indisputable that petitioner obtained enjoyment from
his drag racing activity, especially considering the extra time
he was able to spend with his children. This factor favors
respondent.
On balance, we are not convinced that during the years in
issue petitioner engaged in the drag racing activity for profit.
To the contrary, we believe that petitioner was engaged in this
activity because of his long-held interest in drag racing,
derived substantial personal pleasure from the activity, and had
no good-faith expectation of making a profit. Petitioner’s
losses are not deductible.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
4
In 2007 the combined wages of petitioner and his wife were
$168,739, an approximately 44-percent increase from 2006.
Petitioner’s drag racing expenses in 2007 were $59,714, an
increase of over 75 percent from 2006.