# UNITED STATES TAX COURT

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Atax-court%3A82d86e58fd8ad747

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

T.C. Memo. 2000-234

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

LOUIS J. NOVAK, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 6457-98.

Filed August 2, 2000.

Michael D. McPhillips and Terry W. Vincent, for petitioner.
Anita A. Gill, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
RUWE, Judge:

Respondent determined deficiencies in

petitioner’s Federal income taxes as follows:
Year
1993
1994
1995

Deficiency
$17,654
19,723
39,061

- 2 The sole issue for decision1 is whether petitioner’s
breeding, training, and showing of Arabian horses was an activity
engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioner resided in

Newbury, Ohio, at the time he filed his petition.
Petitioner has been a practicing radiation oncologist since
1975.

As a radiation oncologist, petitioner regularly works

between the hours of 7 or 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 or 6
o’clock in the evening, 5 days a week.

He is also on the faculty

of University Hospital and is on call from the hospital
approximately 1 out of 4 to 5 weeks.

In addition, petitioner is

on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for his own practice.
Petitioner practiced radiation oncology as an employee of
University Radiologists of Cleveland.

During the 22 years that

petitioner was employed by University Radiologists, petitioner
served on its board of directors.

During the years 1986 through

1

The notice of deficiency contains adjustments to
petitioner’s itemized deductions and claimed exemption allowances
for the years in issue. These are computational adjustments
which will be affected by the outcome of the issue to be decided,
and we do not separately address them.
2

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.

- 3 1997, petitioner received the following wage income from
University Radiologists:
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Total

Wages
$156,461
278,749
218,365
232,952
232,715
207,880
183,496
188,496
217,925
223,957
230,209
219,400
2,590,605

Petitioner owned University Imaging, Inc., an S corporation,
from 1988 through 1997.

During the years in issue, he reported

the following income from University Imaging:
Year
1993
1994
1995
Total

Income
$17,252
18,850
23,795
59,897

Petitioner first worked on a horse farm and learned how to
ride horses while in high school.

Petitioner developed a

fondness for horses but was unable to engage in horse-related
activities while he was in college.3

3

After college, petitioner

Petitioner testified that while he was in college, his
friends sent him little bags of horse manure so that he could
“smell the horses”.

- 4 attended medical school so that he could earn sufficient income
to “do something with horses”.4
Petitioner began his breeding activity in 1970 by breeding
an Arabian stallion and then changed his breeding activity in
1976 to the breeding of Arabian mares.

Also in 1976, petitioner

bought his first parcel of real estate and built a small barn on
it.
In 1986, petitioner purchased a 78.5-acre parcel of real
estate in Newbury, Ohio, for $222,899.

After acquiring the

property, petitioner paid between $25,000 and $30,000 to
refurbish the existing house, $30,000 to build a three-car
garage, $40,000 to create a lake, $20,000 to build an exercise
pen, approximately $20,000 to build run-in sheds, and between
$8,000 and $10,000 to build stalls.

Petitioner resided on the

Newbury, Ohio, property during the years in issue.
Petitioner’s 1986 Federal income tax return reported income
and deductions relating to the breeding, training, and showing of

4

Petitioner testified:

My father was a banker and had raised four kids, helped
and supported my brother and I to do the horse
activities that we were interested in as high school
students, and I initially thought I was going to become
a school teacher, and my father said, if you ever want
to have horses, you can’t be a school teacher, you’ve
got to find a job where you can make some money, be a
doctor or a dentist, and so, I decided I would go to
medical school so that I could make a decent living and
continue to do something with horses, that I realized
required a considerable amount of money.

- 5 Arabian horses on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, under
the business name “Louis J. Novak”.

For the years 1987 through

1997, petitioner reported income and deductions relating to his
Arabian horse activity on Schedule C under the business name
“Arabian Crossings Farm” or “Arabian Crossings”.
During the years 1986 through 1997, petitioner’s horse
activity was reported on Schedule C as having incurred losses as
follows:

Year

Gross
Receipts

Cost of
Goods Sold

Gross
Income

Schedule C
Expenses
Other Than
Depreciation

1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Total

$32,200
16,870
13,644
8,833
12,176
12,695
4,309
3,452
3,250
3,625
3,105
1,688
115,847

-0-0-0$4,320
7,390
6,100
6,018
5,825
6,566
13,629
18,877
6,290
75,015

$32,200
16,870
13,644
4,513
4,786
6,595
(1,709)
(2,373)
(3,316)
(10,004)
(15,772)
(4,602)
40,832

$78,976
78,478
66,657
76,485
90,917
94,383
52,774
55,588
49,265
60,003
65,138
1
106,068
874,732

Depreciation

Schedule C
Loss

$39,931
42,723
44,875
24,338
28,379
29,279
31,760
27,711
28,039
27,580
24,786
21,080
370,481

($86,707)
(104,331)
(97,888)
(96,310)
(114,510)
(117,067)
(86,243)
(85,672)
(80,620)
(97,587)
(105,696)
(131,750)
(1,204,381)

1
Petitioner also owed Stachowski Farms approximately $20,000 in unpaid
boarding/training bills as of Dec. 31, 1997.

No sales of horses were included in Schedule C gross
receipts for the years in issue.

Reported gross receipts for the

years in issue consisted entirely of prize winnings.

It does not

appear that any of the “gross receipts” that petitioner reported
from 1986 through 1992 and 1996 through 1997 included the sale of
horses that he bred.

For each of those years, petitioner

reported the sale of horses on Form 4797, Gains and Losses From
Sales or Exchanges of Assets Used in a Trade or Business and
Involuntary Conversions.

- 6 For the years 1989 through 1997, “cost of goods sold” shown
on petitioner’s Schedule C consisted entirely of labor.

Since

petitioner’s gross receipts reported on Schedule C for the years
in issue consisted entirely of prize money, the characterization
of labor as cost of goods sold is questionable.
In 1996, petitioner reported $3,105 in gross receipts and
cost of goods sold of $18,877.

The entire $18,877 in reported

cost of goods sold consisted of reported labor cost.

The $18,877

in reported labor cost represented a 38.5-percent increase over
reported labor cost in 1995, while reported gross receipts
dropped 14.34 percent.
$12,980

Of the $18,877 in reported labor cost,

consisted of wages paid to Alan Dahart.

personal friend who lives with petitioner.

Mr. Dahart is a

- 7 From 1986 through 1997, petitioner reported the following
income from the sale of horses on Form 4797:5

Year
1986
1986
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
19894
1990
1990-1991
1991
1992
1993
1994
1997
Total
1

Gross Sales
Price
$10,000
3,000
25,000
42,000
2,500
5,000
36,986
15,000
1,500
3,000
3,480
54,500
15,000
2,500
50,000
269,466

Previously
Allowed
Depreciation
$3,150
-011,000
-0-02,898
70,399
42,250
6,375
-06,300
1,250
11,900
-01,275
156,797

Cost1
Gain/Loss2
($10,500)
$2,650
(3,000)
-0(25,000)
11,000
(26,500)
15,500
-02,500
(3,216)
4,682
(118,710) (11,325)
(50,000)
7,250
(8,500)
(625)
3
-03,000
(7,000)
2,780
(32,125)
23,625
(17,000)
9,900
-02,500
(5,025)
46,250
(306,576) 119,687

Includes petitioner’s cost or other basis, plus expense of

sale.
2

Petitioner’s gains and losses were determined by adding the
gross sales price and depreciation and then subtracting petitioner’s
cost or other basis and selling cost.
3
The sale was reported on the installment method. Accordingly,
$800 was recognized in 1990 and $2,200 was recognized in 1991.
4
The horses that petitioner sold after 1989 were bred by him.

For 1992, $29,625 of the $32,125 in cost reported by
petitioner is commission paid on the sale of three horses.

Mr.

Dahart was paid $22,500 in commission on those three sales.

5

For the years in issue, petitioner reported the sale of
horses on part I of Form 4797, Gains and Losses From Sales or
Exchanges of Assets in a Trade or Business and Involuntary
Conversion. The instructions for Form 4797 for those years
provide the following: Sec. 1231 transactions include “Sales or
exchanges of cattle and horses, regardless of age, used in a
trade or business by the taxpayer for draft, breeding, dairy, or
sporting purposes and held for 24 months or more from acquisition
date.”

- 8 The average commission a seller pays on the sale of a horse
is 10 to 15 percent of the sales price.

Petitioner paid

commissions of 10 to 15 percent to persons other than Mr. Dahart.
Nevertheless, petitioner paid commissions to Mr. Dahart that were
as high as 50 percent.

Petitioner provided no explanation for

the above-average commissions paid to Mr. Dahart.

Petitioner

paid Mr. Dahart commissions6 on the following sales:
Year of
Sale
1990
1992
1992
1992

Horse
Dance with Fire
Pro Gato
La Quintina
Lucy in Disguise

Sales
Price
$3,000
47,500
2,000
5,000
57,500

Commission
$1,275
1
19,000
1,000
2,500
23,775

Percentage of
Sales Price
42.5%
40.0%
50.0%
50.0%
41.35%

1
Petitioner also paid Stachowski Farms a $7,125 (15-percent) commission on
this sale. Combining the commission paid to Mr. Dahart and to Stachowski Farms,
petitioner paid a 55-percent commission on the sale of Pro Gato.

During the years in issue, petitioner owned the following
horses:
Horse
Staleys Mahgelo
Labamba1
Crystal Aere
Marranda
Bint Quintina
New Foundation
Louisville
Morocco Grande
PF Private Reserv2
Apaladin3
1

Sold in 1994.
Sold in 1993.
3
Born in 1994.
2

During the years in issue, petitioner maintained a separate
checking account for his horse activity under the name “Arabian
6

Petitioner also began paying Mr. Dahart a salary starting
in 1996.

- 9 Crossings”.

Petitioner used separate letterhead and business

cards for the horse activity that bore the name “Arabian
Crossings”.

Mr. Dahart’s name appears on both the letterhead and

business cards along with petitioner’s name.

Mr. Dahart did not

own any interest in petitioner’s horses.
Petitioner has not prepared a written business plan for his
horse activity, nor has he prepared a written analysis to
determine how he could make a profit or what he would have to do
to break even.

Petitioner has not consulted with persons with

expertise regarding the financial aspects of his horse activity.
OPINION
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner’s
breeding, training, and showing of Arabian horses activity is an
activity not engaged in for profit.

Section 183(a) provides that

if a taxpayer’s activity constitutes an activity not engaged in
for profit, expenses arising out of the activity are allowed as
deductions only as provided in section 183(b).

An “activity not

engaged in for profit” is defined in section 183(c) 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.”

Section 162 generally

permits the deduction of expenses incurred in a trade or
business, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 212 generally
permit a similar deduction for expenses incurred “for the

- 10 production or collection of income” or “for the management,
conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production
of income”.
For a deduction to be allowed under section 162 or section
212(1) or (2), a taxpayer must establish that he engaged in the
activity with the primary purpose and dominant intent of
realizing a profit.

See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S.

23, 35 (1987);7 Hayden v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 1548, 1552 (6th
Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-310; Godfrey v. Commissioner,
335 F.2d 82, 84 (6th Cir. 1964), affg. T.C. Memo. 1963-1; see
also Warden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-176, affd. without
published opinion 111 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 1997).

In determining

whether an activity is engaged in for profit, greater weight is
given to objective facts than to the taxpayer’s mere statement of
his intent.

See sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.

Section 183(d) provides a rebuttable presumption that an
activity will be an activity engaged in for profit if the gross
income from the activity exceeds the deductions attributable to
the activity for 3 or more of the taxable years in a 5-year
period.

In the case of an activity which consists in major part

of the breeding, training, showing, or racing of horses, “2” is

7

“We accept the fact that to be engaged in a trade or
business, the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with
continuity and regularity and that the taxpayer’s primary purpose
for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit.”
Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987).

- 11 substituted for “3” and “7” for “5”.

Petitioner has never

reported a profit from his horse activity.
Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., sets forth some
relevant factors for determining whether an activity is engaged
in for profit.

The relevant factors are:

(1) The manner in

which the taxpayer carries on the activity; (2) the expertise of
the taxpayer or his advisers; (3) the time and effort expended by
the taxpayer in 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 presence of elements of personal
pleasure or recreation.

Not all of these factors are applicable

in every case, and no one factor is controlling.

See sec. 1.183-

2(b), Income Tax Regs.
We now apply each of these factors to the facts in this
case.
(1)

Manner in Which the Taxpayer Carries on the Activity
Petitioner argues that his actions evidenced a business plan

and cites Phillips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-128.
Phillips, the taxpayers had a business plan.
costs per horse, per month.

In

They calculated the

They estimated when their horse

- 12 activity would become profitable.

They performed a detailed

analysis of their horse activity.

Petitioner did not have such

plans.

He has not prepared a profit plan for his horse activity.

He did not prepare any written analysis in order to determine how
he could make a profit or what he would have to do to break even.
Petitioner has not consulted with persons with expertise
regarding the financial aspects of his horse activity.
Petitioner testified that his current goal is to continue his
horse activity but to do so more efficiently.

Petitioner

admitted at trial that he will never be able to recoup what he
has spent on his activity thus far.
Some of petitioner’s actions seem to run contrary to a
profit objective.

Petitioner testified that the average

commission paid on the sale of a horse is 10 to 15 percent, and
that is what he would pay to persons other than Mr. Dahart.
Petitioner testified that he would pay Mr. Dahart commissions as
high as 50 percent.

When petitioner sold La Quintina and Lucy in

Disguise, he paid Mr. Dahart a 50-percent commission on each
sale.

When petitioner sold Pro Gato8 for $47,500, he paid Mr.

Dahart a $19,000 or 40-percent commission, and he also paid

8

The contract was prepared on Arabian Crossings’ letterhead
that included both the names of petitioner and Alan Dahart.
However, petitioner testified that he and Mr. Dahart did not
jointly own any horses.

- 13 Stachowski Farms a $7,125 or 15-percent commission.

Petitioner

paid commissions totaling 55 percent on the sale of Pro Gato.
Petitioner maintained a separate checking account for
Arabian Crossings, and he initially testified that the account
was not used for personal expenses.
for personal expenses.

However, checks were written

For instance, petitioner used the Arabian

Crossings’ checking account on several occasions to send checks
totaling $250 to his niece on her birthday, to pay for a personal
trip to Las Vegas, and to pay veterinarian bills for a swan that
he kept on his farm.

On the other hand, petitioner would pay

Stachowski Farms9 with his Visa credit card and then pay his Visa
bills from his personal checking account.
Petitioner asserts that he promoted his Arabians by
exhibiting them at shows and competitive events.

An examination

of petitioner’s Federal income tax returns for the years in issue
indicates that petitioner deducted $31,42910 in show costs and
expenses11 and reported $10,32712 in gross receipts from prize

9

Petitioner paid Stachowski Farms to board and breed some of
his horses, and occasionally Stachowski Farms acted as agent for
petitioner on the sale of some horses.
10

During 1993, 1994, and 1995, petitioner deducted $10,609,
$6,355, and $14,465, respectively, as show costs and expenses.
11

Petitioner testified that show costs consist of entry
fees, transporting horses to shows, and maintenance of the horses
at the shows.
12

Petitioner reported gross receipts for each year of
(continued...)

- 14 winnings.

Petitioner’s participation in shows and equestrian

events is as consistent with a hobby as it is a business.

See

Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 430 (1979), affd. without
published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981).
(2)

The Expertise of the Taxpayer or His Advisers.
Petitioner argues that he became an expert in the Arabian

horse-breeding business, read numerous periodicals pertaining to
Arabian horses, participated in various Arabian horse-related
organizations, and consulted with individuals whom petitioner
considered to be experts in the field.

The mere fact that

petitioner has skill in the breeding of horses and hired various
experts does not prove that petitioner was engaged in his horse
activity primarily for profit.

See Glenn v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1995-399, affd. without published opinion 103 F.3d 129 (6th
Cir. 1996).

Expertise with respect to the breeding of horses is

to be distinguished from expertise in the economics of these
undertakings.
at 432.

See id.; see also Golanty v. Commissioner, supra

A taxpayer's failure to obtain expertise in the

economics of horse-related activities indicates a lack of profit
motive.

See Burger v. Commissioner, 809 F.2d 355, 359 (7th Cir.

1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-523.

12

In this case, petitioner

(...continued)
$3,452, $3,250, and $3,625, respectively.

- 15 sought no professional advice on the economic aspects of the
breeding, training, and showing of Arabian horses.
Petitioner is an intelligent person, and he has acquired a
good deal of knowledge about Arabian horses and their breeding.
However, such activity and knowledge are altogether consistent
with his interest in a hobby, and he has failed to show that he
sought or acquired the expertise that would enable him to turn
the activity into a profitable business.
(3)

The Time and Effort Expended by the Taxpayer in Carrying on
the Activity.
Petitioner argues that he has organized his medical practice

and his farm so that he can spend enough time to develop his
Arabian horse activity.
his medical practice.

Petitioner devoted substantial time to
The time and effort spent breeding horses

was substantially less and was not inconsistent with the time one
might expect to be devoted to a hobby from which the participant
receives enjoyment and satisfaction.
(4)

Expectation That Assets Used in Activity May Appreciate in
Value.
Petitioner argues that he expects the assets used in his

activity will appreciate in value.

Petitioner did not estimate

the value of his horses, and no expert testimony or other
reliable evidence of value was introduced.

Based on petitioner’s

reported sales of Arabian horses to date, he does not come close
to covering his losses.

- 16 Petitioner did not establish that he purchased the real
estate in Newbury, Ohio, with appreciation in mind, nor did he
hold the property primarily with appreciation in mind.
Petitioner testified that he intended to live and retire on the
property.

It was something that he wanted to keep.

He did not

express any desire to sell or profit from the property in order
to offset or recoup his losses.
Petitioner lived on the Newbury, Ohio, property.

To the

extent there was any appreciation, much of it could have been
attributable to the house that petitioner lived in.

Based on

this record, we are unable to separate the property used for the
breeding, training, and showing of Arabian horses from
petitioner’s residential property.
(5)

The Success of the Taxpayer in Carrying on Other Similar or
Dissimilar Activities.
Petitioner has been quite successful as a doctor and was a

shareholder in a profitable S corporation.

Petitioner reported

income totaling $59,897 from University Imaging during the years
in issue.

On the other hand, petitioner was not successful in

his horse partnership Amanda Associates.

Petitioner reported

$16,900 in losses relating to the partnership on his Federal
income tax returns from 1986 through 1990.13

13

Petitioner had an interest in the partnership until 1990.

- 17 Petitioner argues that many years before he formed Arabian
Crossings, he purchased a horse for $4,000 and sold it for
between $20,000 and $25,000.14

Even if we accept this as true,

petitioner has not proven that he did in fact make a profit on
the sale of a horse prior to forming Arabian Crossings.

As the

record shows, many expenses in addition to purchase price have to
be factored into whether a transaction produced an overall
profit.
(6)

The Taxpayer’s History of Income or Losses With Respect to
the Activity
Petitioner argues that the losses are due to expenses

incurred in the startup phase of his activity.

As this Court

stated in Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 261, 274 (1965),
affd. 379 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1967):
the presence of losses in the formative years of a
business, particularly one involving the breeding of
horses, is not inconsistent with an intention to
achieve a later profitable level of operation, bearing
in mind, however, that the goal must be to realize a
profit on the entire operation, which presupposes not
only future net earnings but also sufficient net
earnings to recoup the losses which have meanwhile been
sustained in the intervening years.
We are not convinced that the years in issue fall within
what petitioner asserts is the startup phase of his breeding,
training, and showing of Arabian horses activity.

14

We have said

We have only petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony
regarding the sale.

- 18 that the startup phase of a horse-breeding activity may be 5 to
10 years.

See Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659, 669 (1979).

In 1976, petitioner bought his first parcel of real estate and
built a small barn on it.
horses since 1976.15

Petitioner has been breeding Arabian

One of petitioner’s witnesses wrote a

letter dated March 25, 1999, stating that he has known petitioner
“through his reputation as a quality breeder for more than twenty
years.”
Petitioner argues that he lost money due to a depressed
market during certain years.

However, petitioner incurred

consistent losses during the years 1986 through 1997.

Those

yearly losses ranged from $80,620 to $131,750 per year.

Even

when we consider the fact that petitioner reported gains from the
sale of horses separately on Form 4797, petitioner’s overall
horse activities produced large consistent losses during each of
the years 1986 through 1997.
According to testimony provided by one of petitioner’s
witnesses, the market for Arabian horses began to decline
dramatically around 1985.
farm in 1986.

Petitioner purchased his 78.5-acre

Petitioner spent substantial amounts of money

refurbishing the house in which he lives and improving the

15

Petitioner argues that he only “dabbled” in the industry
prior to 1986. However, at trial, he could not recall whether a
Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, relating to horse
breeding was prepared with the earlier income tax returns.

- 19 property by building a lake, a three-car garage, exercise
facility, barn stalls, and run-in sheds.

These expenditures

during a market decline are inconsistent with petitioner’s
assertion that circumstances beyond his control contributed to
his losses.
The market for Arabian horses began to rebound in 1991 and
1992.

Nevertheless, petitioner continued to sustain losses.

During the market upswing, petitioner sold La Quintina for
$2,000, Lucy in Disguise for $5,000, and Pro Gato for $47,500.
Petitioner received $54,500 from the sale of these three horses,
but he paid Mr. Dahart $22,500 in commissions.16

Selling horses

during a market upswing and paying 41.28 percent17 in cumulative
commissions when the standard commission was between 10 and 15
percent indicate that petitioner’s activity was not engaged in
primarily for profit.
Petitioner also argues that he lost several Arabian horses
and that some of his horses experienced infertility problems.
However, according to petitioner’s own testimony, he has been
very fortunate with regard to unexpected problems with his

16

Petitioner also paid Stachowski Farms a $7,125 commission
on the sale of Pro Gato. In combining the commission paid to Mr.
Dahart and Stachowski Farms, petitioner paid a 55-percent
commission on the sale of Pro Gato.
17

The 41.28 percent does not include the $7,125 commission
that petitioner paid Stachowski Farms in addition to the $19,000
commission paid to Mr. Dahart for the sale of Pro Gato.

- 20 horses.

Indeed, from 1986 until May 1999, petitioner has lost

only two foals.

During the same period of time, petitioner lost

only two mares, both from natural causes, with one dying of old
age.
We are not convinced that petitioner incurred losses during
the years in issue due to a depressed market or unforeseen
problems.

The losses petitioner incurred during the years in

issue were consistent with his losses for all the years from 1986
through 1997.
(7)

The Amount of Occasional Profits, if Any, Which Are Earned
Petitioner’s activity has never been profitable.

Petitioner

admitted at trial that he will never be able to recoup what he
has spent thus far.18
Petitioner asserts that he has sold several Arabians for
substantial sums over the past several years.

However, the

occasional gain petitioner received from the sale of horses from
1986 through 1997 was de minimis compared to the expenses
incurred, and as previously observed, petitioner’s occasional
opportunity to earn profits from the sale of horses was
diminished by the extraordinary commissions paid to Mr. Dahart.

18

Petitioner attempted to mitigate the significance of this
statement by asserting that he could more than recoup all his
losses if he sold all the livestock, equipment, and the farm.
But the farm includes petitioner’s personal residence, and
petitioner has never intended to sell the farm. He testified
that his goal is to spend less time in medicine and more time on
his farm and that he intended to retire on the property.

- 21 (8)

The Financial Status of the Taxpayer
At the time petitioner purchased the property in 1986, he

had wage income of $156,461.
figure mark through 1997.

His income remained above the six-

Petitioner’s average wage income from

1986 through 1997 was $215,884.

During the years in issue,

petitioner also earned $59,897 from University Imaging.
Petitioner was single, had a substantial income, and could afford
to spend money on an activity that gave him enjoyment.
(9)

Elements of Personal Pleasure or Recreation
If the possibility for profit is small compared to the

possibility for gratification, the latter possibility may be the
primary motivation for the activity.

See White v. Commissioner,

23 T.C. 90, 94 (1954), affd. per curiam 227 F.2d 779 (6th Cir.
1955).
Petitioner’s recreational objectives were a significant
component of his horse-related activities.

Petitioner testified

that when he was in college and trying to decide on a vocation,
he told his father that he was considering becoming a school
teacher.

According to petitioner, his father gave him the

following advice:

“[I]f you ever want to have horses, you can’t

be a school teacher, you’ve got to find a job where you can make
some money, be a doctor or a dentist”.

Based on his father’s

advice, petitioner decided to go to medical school so that he
could make a decent living and continue to do something with

- 22 horses, which he realized required a considerable amount of
money.
Petitioner testified that his long-term goal was to produce
English competition horses19 that were capable of competing and
winning at the national level in the English division and that
could produce the same type of offspring.

According to

petitioner, he has been very successful in reaching his goal of
producing horses that could successfully compete at the national
level.

He testified that his horses have won nine national

championship honors.

Petitioner testified that his ultimate goal

is to retire from medicine young enough so that he is still able
to work and participate in the management of his horses, ride
them, compete with them, and eventually sell them.
Petitioner argues that his substantial time commitment and
hard work eliminate any elements of pleasure or recreation.

We

recognize that the level of work or effort may indicate a profit
objective and that caring for horses and maintaining a horse farm
are hard work.

However, the fact that an activity involves hard

work does not, standing alone, establish that an activity was
engaged in primarily for profit.

Petitioner’s introduction into

horse breeding was precipitated by his love of horses, and he
enjoyed his horse-related activity.

19

Of course, the enjoyment of

Arabian horses compete in English competition, which is a
division of the competitions within the Arabian horse shows.

- 23 one’s activity does not preclude a finding that the activity was
engaged in primarily for profit, but it must be considered along
with all the other facts.
Conclusion
Petitioner may have hoped to make a profit from his horse
activity.

However, in order to prevail, petitioner must show

that his activity was engaged in primarily for the purpose of
making a profit.

See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23,

35 (1987); Hayden v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 1548, 1552 (6th Cir.
1989); Godfrey v. Commissioner, 335 F.2d 82, 84 (6th Cir. 1964);
Warden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-176.

Based on

petitioner’s testimony, his long and consistent history of
reporting losses without ever developing a business plan or
detailed break-even analysis, and the manner in which he
conducted his activity, we find that petitioner has not
established that making a profit was his primary objective.
We hold that petitioner’s activity was not engaged in for
profit within the meaning of section 183(c).

Petitioner’s

deductions of the losses associated with these activities are,
therefore, subject to the limitations set forth in section
183(b).

Decision will be entered
for respondent.

- 24 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Atax-court%3A82d86e58fd8ad747. Public record. Not legal advice.