Revenues
Not Enough to Indicate Business – Ford,
TC Memo 2018-8 (1/25/18), aff’d No. 18-1524
(6th Cir., 11/5/18, not for publication) – F used to be recording
artist and spend most of her life promoting and performing country music. For the
years under exam - 2012 through 2014,
she owned and operated the Bell Cove Club in Tennessee on her own. Earlier, she
and her husband operated this club (starting in 1986) and wanted it to be a
place where artists could perform for talent scouts and producers. It closed when
her husband died in 1999 but Joy reopened it in 2008. Customers only had to pay
$5 for admission and a small amount for food. F paid performers. Losses were
generated. F had some plans she pursued to convert the club into a restaurant
or televise the performances, but these changes did not materialize. The IRS
disallowed the losses finding the club not operated for profit. The court
agreed finding the club was operated mostly for personal pleasure rather than
profit with the losses offsetting investment income of F.
F
appealed to the 6th Circuit which upheld the
Tax Court decision as it did not find any error in that court’s analysis. At
the start, the 6th Circuit notes:
“’Find
a job doing something you love.’ Perhaps that is sound advice. But deducting business losses from your taxes
when you are not trying to profit from the business you love is not a sound
strategy. Here, the Tax Court found that
the appellant did just that: ran a business doing something she loved, accumulated
substantial losses, and deducted those losses from her income. Because the
court below did not commit clear error in making this determination, we AFFIRM.”
The court re-examined the factors under Reg. 1.183-2 that help distinguish a
business from an activity not engaged in for profit and concluded that the club
wasn’t operated in a for-profit manner. For example, the court noted that Ford
did nothing to reduce costs, leaving empty refrigerators and stage lights running
even when the club wasn’t open for business. Also, she did not adjust the cover
charge to help make a profit. In addition, she did not want to serve alcohol,
but let patrons bring in their own. Per the court: “The record paints a picture
of a business operated without regard to cost or profit. There is nothing indicating
Ford operated in a “business-like manner.””
Observations: The Tax Court generally applied Reg. 1.183-2 without
going through a detailed analysis of each of the nine factors. In contrast, the
6th Circuit analyzed each of the nine factors. But both courts
concluded that the club was an activity not engaged in for profit (a hobby). Often,
we think that an activity with customers and revenues is automatically a
business. But more is needed under IRC sections 162 and 183 and the regulations
and court cases. Today, this issue can arise with some occasional, part-time gig
workers. They generate income from, for example, using the Uber or Lyft platform,
but do not set prices, have no business plan, do not regularly engage in the
activity, do not have separate financial records, may be doing the activity to
generate cash for bills and/or pass the time. These individuals may fall into
the same situation as Joy Ford. A tax adviser can help these individuals to
convert their hobby or activity at risk of being a hobby into a business by following
the Reg. 1.183-2 factors to make the activity a business. After the TCJA, a hobby
means all of the revenue is reported, but no deductions are allowed.
What do you think?
1 comment:
Great article! I agree with your general statement that revenues can be a hobby.
Post a Comment