1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*182 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
BEGHE,
As a result of respondent's concession on an unrelated issue brought up by petitioner's amendment of his 1990 return, the only issues remaining for decision relate to the deficiency and penalty for 1991, viz: (1) Whether petitioner, in 1986, was engaged in a trade or business1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*183 under
We hold: (1) Petitioner was engaged in a trade or business in 1986; (2) petitioner (a) was not engaged in a trade or business in 1991, but (b) did incur expenses in connection with property held for the production of income within the meaning of
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein.
When petitioner filed his1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*184 petition, he resided in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska.
Petitioner has a degree in petroleum production engineering. Prior to beginning a drilling business in 1978, petitioner spent approximately 20 years in the petroleum industry as a drilling engineer.
In December 1978, petitioner purchased a used Hughes Auger drill rig for $ 76,181 and commenced a drilling business that he called "De Boer Drilling Co." 3 Petitioner's rig, rather than being used to drill for oil, was used to drill large diameter foundation support holes for construction projects, as well as the holes needed to start oil wells. During the years 1978 through 1981, petitioner operated the drill rig on a contract basis for oil companies and construction companies on the north slope of Alaska. Petitioner performed drilling work for such oil companies as Alyeska Oil Co., Atlantic Richfield, and British Petroleum, and such construction companies as Morrison Knudsen Corp. and Green Construction Co.
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*185 Petitioner had no employment other than the operation of his drilling business during 1978 through 1981. Over a 3-year period, 1979 through 1981, petitioner earned approximately $ 300,000 in revenues from his drilling business. Because of the short construction season and long Alaskan winter, petitioner's revenues were earned during a 1- to 2-month period in each of those years.
In September 1981, petitioner moved from Alaska to Stavanger, Norway, to accept employment as a drilling engineer for Mobil Oil Co. on the North Sea. Petitioner continued to work overseas as a Mobil employee until May 1985. From 1981 through 1984, petitioner returned to Alaska 4 to 6 weeks each year; during these visits he worked on his drill rig and corresponded with potential clients. With the exception of a 1-week rental of the drill rig in 1982, petitioner received no revenue from De Boer Drilling Co. while he was employed by Mobil.
In May 1985, soon after completing his employment with Mobil, petitioner returned to Alaska. In June 1985, petitioner purchased at auction, for $ 50,000, another used drill rig that had an original list price of $ 650,000, and the capacity to 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*186 drill deeper than the first rig. 4 Petitioner also purchased diesel and electric welding equipment for $ 3,500. Later during the year, petitioner purchased "Inner Kelly" equipment for use with the recently purchased rig, at a cost of $ 30,962.
Although the second drill rig was in working order when purchased by petitioner, he spent substantial time and money renovating it, and keeping it in working order. From the end of May 1985, through the beginning of July 1987, petitioner had no employment other than his drilling operation, and devoted the bulk of his waking hours working on the drill rig and looking for jobs on which he could use it. Notwithstanding that petitioner engaged in wage-earning employment after July 1987 for various1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*187 employers (see
For the purchase price and capital costs of work done on the second drill rig from 1985 through 1989, petitioner claimed cost recovery deductions of approximately $ 88,000. Petitioner also claimed expense deductions for De Boer Drilling Co. of approximately $ 113,000 during 1985 through 1991. During this period, petitioner filed Federal income tax returns, identifying his occupation as "drilling contractor", with Schedule C forms identifying the principal service as "drilling services," and the business name as "De Boer Drilling Co." For the years 1985 through 1991, petitioner reported gross receipts, expenses, and losses for De Boer Drilling Co., as follows:
Gross | Net Profit | |||
Tax Year | Receipts | Expenses | Depreciation 5 | (Or Loss) |
1985 | -0- | $ 16,752 | $ 23,957 | ($ 40,709) |
1986 | $ 2,148 | 20,987 | 27,973 | (46,812) |
1987 | 8,280 | 12,834 | 25,356 | (29,910) |
1988 | -0- | 12,092 | 24,739 | (36,831) |
1989 | -0- | 31,994 | 17,738 | (49,732) |
1990 | -0- | 12,112 | -0- | (12,112) |
1991 | -0- | 6,471 | -0- | (6,471) |
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*188 Petitioner's net loss for 1986 was shown on his 1986 return as a net operating loss, for which he claimed a carryover deduction in 1991.
The gross receipts shown above for 1986 and 1987 resulted from sales of metal well casing purchased by petitioner for $ 6,535 in September 1978, and on which he had claimed depreciation deductions for the years 1978 through 1985. Petitioner had no other receipts or gross income from De Boer Drilling Co. for1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*189 the years 1985-91. Petitioner received and reported wages in the following amounts on his Federal income tax returns from 1985 through 1991:
Tax | ||||
Year | Wages | Employer | Dates Worked | Hrs./Wk. |
1985 | $ 89,555 | Mobil Exploration | 1/1-5/20 | 50 |
Norway, Inc. | ||||
1986 | 7,254 | Mobil expense reimbursement | ||
1987 | 14,228 | U.S. Army | 7/11-10/30 | 35 |
Everts Air Fuel | 12/1-12/31 | 35 | ||
1988 | 21,639 | Everts Air Fuel | 1/1-12/31 | 35 |
1989 | 20,285 | Everts Air Fuel | 1/10-6/10 | 35 |
Craig Taylor Equip. Co. | 11/11-12/31 | 40 | ||
1990 | 31,894 | Craig Taylor Equip. Co. | 1/1-12/31 | 40 |
1991 | 36,332 | Craig Taylor Equip. Co. | 1/1-2/15 | 40 |
University of Alaska | 2/26-12/31 | 38 |
In 1987, petitioner attempted to sell the second drill rig, and entered negotiations to sell it at a price of approximately $ 400,000. However, he did not sell it. 6
During the years 1985-91, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*190 petitioner listed De Boer Drilling Co. in the Fairbanks, Alaska yellow pages under the heading "drilling contractors" at a cost of approximately $ 150 to $ 200 per year. Petitioner also maintained business licenses, and submitted written proposals to provide drilling services to oil and construction companies during the relevant period. With the exception of written proposals in 1992 and 1993, petitioner did not retain written records of his efforts to find work for his drilling operation.
While petitioner used the drill rig to drill some holes on his own property, 71996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*191 he has never been able to obtain contracts to use the drill rig commercially for clients. Petitioner attributes his inability to obtain drilling business to a general depression in the level of economic activity in Alaska during this period, due to the decline in oil prices. Indeed, oil prices did decline sharply in 1986, and thereafter, through 1991, remained at substantially lower levels than they were at in 1984 and 1985. 8
Petitioner is a skilled mechanic and engineer. His long hours of work on the drill rig, in the face of his inability to find work for it, are attributable1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*192 both to the profit that he expected to earn from its operation and disposition and the enjoyment he derived from working on the equipment, upgrading it, and keeping it in a state of readiness.
Petitioner reported taxable income of $ 35,354 and a tax liability of $ 7,774 on his Federal income tax return for 1985. However, foreign tax credits arising from petitioner's foreign source income from his work overseas reduced that liability to zero. Petitioner reported no taxable income and a tax liability of zero on each of his Federal income tax returns for the period 1986 through 1991.
Petitioner's 1985-89 Federal income tax returns were examined by respondent. The examination resulted in petitioner's receipt, in March 1992, of respondent's no-change report and letter with respect to his 1989 reported income and deductions.
OPINION
Respondent determined that petitioner did not engage in the drilling business during the taxable years 1986 and 1991 with the intent to earn a profit. Respondent disallowed the deductions in 1991 attributable to petitioner's drill rig activity, maintaining that petitioner was not in business in 1986, and that petitioner's drilling equipment was not in business use in 1986 or 1991.
Respondent concedes that if petitioner was engaged in business in 1986, he incurred a net operating loss of $ 25,546 that he can carry forward to 1991, the year before us, without regard to his later trade or business status and the proper treatment of the losses he claimed for the intervening years 1987-90. If petitioner was engaged in the drilling business in 1986, the net operating loss carryover taken as a deduction in 1991 was proper, because the loss would have been incurred in the operation of a trade or business. See, e.g.,
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*194 Respondent maintains that the business begun by petitioner in 1978 ended in 1981 when petitioner accepted overseas employment, and that, upon returning from Norway, petitioner began a new activity that never became a trade or business. Petitioner maintains that his business continued from 1978 through 1991 and thereafter, and that his purchase of and work on the second drill rig and efforts to obtain contracts for its use were a continuation of his preexisting business. It is sometimes necessary to decide whether a taxpayer has terminated his business (so that expenditures to reenter the area are not incurred in "carrying on" the business) or has only suspended business activities temporarily, in which event the taxpayer's status continues for purposes of
Expenses incurred in a trade or business are generally fully deductible. However, an activity must be engaged in for income or profit in order to constitute a trade or business.
Viewing the record as a whole, we believe that petitioner, in 1986, had a bona fide intention to derive a profit from his drilling activity. Petitioner had operated a successful drilling business in 1978 through 1981, prior to accepting employment in Norway at the end of 1981. In the taxable years 1979 through 1981, petitioner earned approximately $ 300,000 in revenues from his drilling business. Although the record contains no direct evidence of petitioner's profits in 1979-81, the gross revenue that he earned in these years must have generated profits. The existence of such profits can be inferred from the levels of annual expenses in later years for which we do have evidence.
Because petitioner's drilling operation from 1978 through 1981 had been successful, he reasonably believed that drilling work would be available upon his return to Alaska in 1985. Cf.
Petitioner had worked full time in his drilling operation from 1978 through 1981. From 1981 through 1984, during the period petitioner was working for Mobil, he returned to Alaska 4 to 6 weeks each year, during which time he worked on his drilling equipment and corresponded with potential clients. In 1982, petitioner earned income from the use of his drill rig.
In 1986, petitioner had no outside employment and did no work other than his drilling activity. Petitioner claims to have devoted 3,285 hours to his drilling operation in 1986, which amounts to more than 80 hours per week. Even one-half of the hours claimed by petitioner would amount to a work week for the average individual during this year.
We deem it unnecessary1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*198 to decide whether petitioner's drill rig activities in 1985-86 were a continuation or reactivation of his 1978-81 trade or business, or an attempt to start a new business, with the old business of 1978-81 having been terminated by petitioner's full time employment overseas with Mobil. We conclude that, during the year 1986, petitioner engaged in the drilling activity for profit.
Respondent argues that the losses incurred by petitioner in both of the years at issue, as well as the intervening years, petitioner's lack of formal operating statements or records, and the recreational benefit derived by petitioner from his drilling activity are indicative of petitioner's lack of profit objective in 1986.
We do not find petitioner's losses
Respondent argues that petitioner's activity should have been unaffected by the decline in oil prices, because petitioner's drilling activity consisted only of foundation work for construction projects and oil companies. Respondent maintains that there was still a market for petitioner's services.
We find petitioner's argument more persuasive on this point. As the figure of speech, "if it's not broken, don't fix it", suggests, we believe that, when petitioner returned from Norway in 1986, he conducted his drilling activity in much the same way he had from 1978 through 1981, when he had earned large revenues and substantial profits. Although there had been a market for petitioner's services in 1978 through 1981, the decline in oil prices in 1986 resulted in a general economic decline with a correlative reduction in construction activity during the period after his return to Alaska, which1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*200 obviously had an adverse effect on petitioner's ability to obtain drilling contracts.
Petitioner admits that he enjoys working on his equipment. While petitioner's drilling activity included recreational and personal elements, we do not find that those aspects outweighed petitioner's profit objective. A taxpayer's enjoyment of an activity does not demonstrate a lack of profit objective if the activity is, in fact, conducted for profit as shown by other factors.
Petitioner expended a great deal of money renovating his drill rig. We do not believe that petitioner would have embarked on such a time-consuming, costly, labor-intensive venture without a profit objective. The fact that petitioner derived a level of personal satisfaction from working on the equipment does not believe his underlying profit objective.
Although petitioner's records of his drilling activities and efforts to find work for the rig left much to be desired, the absence of accurate books and records does not conclusively establish the lack of a profit objective. 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*201 See
Finally, we consider petitioner's financial status. Petitioner is not a wealthy individual whose unprofitable drilling activity would suggest an effort to shelter unrelated income through deliberate losses. While substantial income from sources other than the activity may indicate that the activity is not engaged in for profit, the fact that the taxpayer does not have substantial income from sources other than the activity tends to indicate that the activity is engaged in for profit.
We conclude that petitioner was engaged in a trade or business with regard to the drill rig during 1986, and is entitled to the net operating loss carryover deducted in 1991.
Our finding that petitioner's activity constituted a trade or business under
If an activity is one "not engaged in for profit",
Our finding is based on the manner in which petitioner carried on his activity from 1987 through 1990, including part of 1991. Because no one factor is determinative, we are most persuaded by petitioner's continued dependence on techniques that produced no revenue. While losses often occur during the formative years of a business, "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."
While each case is unique, and we are not willing to place a strict length-of-time requirement on when an activity is no longer carried on for profit, we do not think that the profit objective petitioner had in 1986 could have continued through 1991. We sustain respondent's1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*205 determination that petitioner was not engaged in a trade or business in 1991.
Having concluded that petitioner was not engaged in a trade or business under
Expenses paid or incurred in managing, conserving, or maintaining property held for investment may be deductible under
The Supreme Court first interpreted
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*207 Respondent does not dispute that the expenses listed on petitioner's tax return were paid by petitioner. However, in her statutory notice of deficiency, respondent maintains that no deduction is allowable because petitioner had not placed his drill rig into business use. Under
Petitioner has expended substantial amounts of money, time and effort in the renovation and maintenance of his drill rig. The taxpayer may hope to derive a profit from an activity, and may intend that, even if no profit is derived from current operations, an overall profit will result when appreciation in the value of property used in the activity is realized.
Although petitioner's work on his drill rig was a source of personal satisfaction, a drill rig would hardly qualify as a recreational vehicle. Profit objective is to be determined on an objective basis.
Petitioner maintains that his drill rig has a present value of $ 500,000 to $ 750,000. The value of a capital asset is a function of the stream of income that it can produce, and petitioner has failed to produce any revenue through the use of the drill rig. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that the expenses incurred by petitioner in 1991 were "ordinary and necessary" in helping to maintain the appreciated value of petitioner's drill rig, whose original $ 50,000 basis had been reduced to zero by depreciation deductions allowed.
Respondent questions the reasonableness1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*209 of petitioner's estimate of value, particularly because petitioner did not present appraisals or expert testimony of the value of the drill rig. Petitioner testified, however, that he was in negotiations to sell the drill rig in 1987 for approximately $ 400,000. Even a lesser increase in value would still provide petitioner with a substantial profit, without the benefit of depreciation deductions. See
Respondent argues that petitioner did not "hold" his drill rig with the primary objective of making a profit. However, even if this were true,
In
The case at hand is distinguishable from
Under
Thus, petitioner's allowable deduction for 1991 is subject to the 2-percent limitation of
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for a penalty for negligence pursuant to
Negligence is defined as the lack of due care or the failure to do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under similar circumstances.
We have held for petitioner on the substantive issues of the net operating loss carryover from 1986 and the 1991 expense deductions, which remove both from consideration as a possible source of support for respondent's determination of negligence. However, on his 1991 return, petitioner deducted the1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*214 entire amount of expenses incurred in 1991 as trade or business expenses. We have determined that petitioner's deductions for 1991 are allowed only as expenses incurred in the production of income under
We find no affirmative evidence of negligence or disregard of the rules or regulations. We have found petitioner to be an intelligent and credible witness. Even a taxpayer well-versed in the Code requirements for carrying on a trade or business often encounters difficulty in determining what would satisfy the requirements. We find that petitioner was acting in reasonable good faith when he concluded that the items in question were deductible as trade or business expenses. Sec. 6664(c)(1); see
While we have disagreed with petitioner's characterization of his expenses for 1991, and found his claims of business expense deductions to be incorrect, petitioner had a reasonable basis for his claims. After audit, petitioner received a no-change letter in March 1992 for the1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*215 taxable year 1989, stating that petitioner's business deductions for that year were proper. Petitioner timely filed his 1991 Federal income tax return in April 1992, shortly after receipt of the no-change letter. It was reasonable for petitioner to rely on the no-change letter as an indication of respondent's agreement that he continued to be engaged in a trade or business, see
Accordingly, we decline to sustain the imposition of any penalty under
To reflect the foregoing,
Appendix
The Federal Rules of Evidence generally apply to proceedings in this Court. Sec. 7453;
Issue (a). Exhibits 6 and 7, Income Tax Examination Changes and No-Change Letter For 1989
Respondent objects to the admission1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*216 of the 1989 income tax examination report and no-change letter. Citing
Petitioner claimed deductions in 1989 for depreciation and other expenses related to his drilling operation. Respondent, after audit, concluded that petitioner's return for the tax year 1989 should be accepted with1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*217 no change in the reported taxable income for that year. Respondent's concession is an admission that has a tendency to show that petitioner was engaged in a trade or business in 1989. Exhibits 6 and 7 are relevant to whether petitioner was engaged in a trade or business in 1991. 12
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 182">*218
Respondent objects to the admission of the 1991 income tax examination and report. Respondent relies on
We agree with respondent. A trial before the Tax Court is a proceeding de novo.
Respondent objects to the admission of an offer in settlement sent by an IRS Appeals officer to petitioner.
Petitioner objects, on the ground of lack of relevance, to the admission of his 1992 and 1993 Federal income tax returns. Respondent maintains that petitioner's returns for the years 1992 and 1993 are evidence that petitioner is still earning no revenue from his drilling activity. This, respondent argues, is relevant to the determination of whether petitioner carried on a trade or business. Petitioner maintains that the years covered in this case include years prior to 1992, and evidence relating to whether he maintained a trade or business should be limited to those years.
We agree with respondent. The tax years before this Court are 1986 and 1991. Respondent seeks admission of the 1992 and 1993 tax returns for the purpose of showing that De Boer Drilling Co. continued to earn no revenue. This evidence is relevant to whether petitioner was engaged in a trade or business in 1991, the immediately preceding year.
1. Unless otherwise identified, 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.↩
2. See appendix for rulings on evidentiary objections.↩
3. The first drill rig is a Model TAP-50, approximately 12 feet wide and 70 feet long and weighing approximately 150,000 pounds. This drill is capable of drilling to a depth of approximately 60 feet.↩
4. The second drill rig is a Hughes Tool Co. Model TAP-120T, also approximately 12 feet wide and 70 feet long, and weighing approximately 150,000 pounds. This rig is capable of drilling holes from 18 inches in diameter to 120 inches in diameter and can dig efficiently to a depth of 120 feet.↩
5. Petitioner was still claiming depreciation deductions on the first drill rig (on a straight-line basis over 10 years) during this period. Depreciation deductions claimed by petitioner with respect to the first drill rig and other equipment purchased during the period 1978-81 and the second drill rig and related equipment purchased in 1985 are as follows:
Depreciation | |||
Tax Year | First Drill Rig | Second Drill Rig | Total |
1985 | $ 9,514 | $ 14,443 | $ 23,957 |
1986 | 7,618 | 20,355 | 27,973 |
1987 | 5,618 | 17,738 | 23,356 |
1988 | 7,001 | 17,738 | 24,739 |
1989 | 0 | 17,738 | 17,738 |
6. There is no evidence in the record as to what petitioner did with the first rig after he bought the second rig, and all further references herein to "the drill rig" are to the second drill rig.↩
7. The record does not disclose the nature of petitioner's property, which he characterizes as "commercial", and whether petitioner's drilling on the property was merely to test operative capabilities of petitioner's equipment or to benefit the property.↩
8. Neither party asked the Court to take judicial notice of the decrease in oil prices or general economic activity that began in 1985. However, on brief and at trial, both parties referred to a decline in oil prices during the relevant period and appear to agree that it had a general depressing effect on the levels of construction and general economic activity in Alaska. Crude oil price summaries for the relevant periods are available, and we take judicial notice of them, under
The largest decline in the spot price of crude oil occurred in 1986, and the price never recovered during the relevant period to 1984-85 levels.
Selected domestic prices per barrel follow:
Year | Price |
1984 average | $ 25.88 |
1985 average | 24.09 |
1986 average | 12.51 |
1987 average | 15.40 |
1988 average | 12.58 |
1989 average | 15.86 |
1990 average | 20.03 |
1991 average | 16.54 |
Energy Information Administration/Historical Monthly Energy Review 1973-1992, at 249.↩
9. Respondent, in her notice of deficiency, determined that petitioner was not engaged in business in 1986 and therefore disallowed the net operating loss from that year. Respondent did not determine alternatively that, even if petitioner was engaged in a trade or business in 1986, he was not engaged in business in the intervening years 1987 through 1990. It would follow, if petitioner was not engaged in business or income production during the intervening years, that petitioner's income from these years would have absorbed the net operating loss from 1986, leaving nothing to be carried forward to 1991. Respondent did not make this argument, and we do not address it.↩
10. First,
11. See also Bittker & Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts, par. 20.5.1, at 20-104 (2d ed. 1989). Bittker & Lokken suggest that the "nonbusiness" label for
12. We should note that the no-change letter issued by respondent for the tax year 1989 is not controlling evidence that petitioner was engaged in a trade or business in that year. For respondent's no-change letter to be binding, petitioner must show the elements of estoppel,