Open Always
Email: support@globalcompose.com Call Now! +1-315 515-4588
Open Always
Email: support@globalcompose.com Call Now! +1-315 515-4588

Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

This sample paper on (Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)) was uploaded by one our contributors and does not necessarily reflect how our professionals write our papers. If you would like this paper removed from our website, please contact us via our Contact Us Page

A Database of over Million Scholarly Resources. Start your Search Now

Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

Facts

This is an appeal from a trial court where the court confirmed the deficiencies discovered by the respondents in the petitioners’ returns. The case was premised on the following facts: Somewhere between 1973-74 Thomas Burger, a surgeon by profession was affected by Dupuytrens Contracture that eventually clamped his fingers and could no longer practise. Together with his wife Marian Burger they decided to set up a dog breeding business because it would allow them to change places and it was an activity they liked. The couple had insufficient expertise in the business and therefore contracted an attorney who advised them as to the zoning complications and retained an accountant.

The couple business name was Shantoma and started breeding Afghan hounds after purchasing from Dr Kennedy. Later, the taxpayers added the Kunasata breed. Meantime, Dr. Kennedy had an obligation to source for the stud in the first three breeding. He failed to provide the stud and the taxpayers meted the breed with one of the Afghan hounds. The taxpayers later acquired other breeds; a male Shih Tzu and two female Shih Tzu pups. The females were mated with different male acquired earlier and as a result produced pups with physical deformities, thus incurring huge losses. Additionally, the petitioners incurred costs in setting up a home, office, in oriental drugs, wallpaper, Japanese prints and others. Moreover, the taxpayers attended 400 dog shows and nearly 20 seminars on dog breeding. The petitioners filed joint tax returns in 1978-80 asserting that Shantoma had run into losses. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue later found discrepancies in the returns and issued Notice of Deficiency to the taxpayers in 1983, prompting the filing of the petition.

Issues
  1. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the taxpayers lacked profit motive?
  2. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the taxpayers failed to keep proper book of accountings
Applicable law

Section 183 (a) (b) (1) (2) (c) of the Internal Revenue Code

Decision

The appellate court held that the trial court was not erroneous in deciding that the taxpayers did not undertake the business with sole objective of realising profit. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court decision.

Court Reasoning

The appellate court relied on the wording of section 183 of the Internal Revenue Code which prohibits deductions on activities not intended to generate profits subject to exceptions. The court considered that the Taxpayer failed to maintain proper book accounting method. The petitioners did not maintain separate books for each breed and as such it was difficult to point the exact expenses and losses. Shantoma’s book keeping was more of a hobby than a business venture. Secondly, the taxpayers lacked expertise in dog breeding, they only acquainted themselves with the mechanics of the business but did not contract economic experts such as accountant and therefore the court concluded that the business lacked profit motive. Thirdly, the business had accumulated losses over the years to a tune of $239,000 and only made meagre returns. Even with the losses the couple continued investing in the business. Moreover, by not retaining experts the court concluded that the Shantoma was more of a recreation than a profit oriented business.

Student’s analysis

The case is significant because the court considered the import of Section 183 of the Internal Revenue Code and henceforth should be considered as a precedent in determining whether an activity is for profit or not.

Sharing is: CARING

Are you looking for homework writing help? Click on Order Now button below to Submit your assignment details.

Homework Writing Help
We Can Help you with this Assignment right now!
Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

Are you looking for homework writing help on (Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

 )? Well, you can either use the sample paper provided to write your paper or you could contact us today for an original  paper. If you are looking for an assignment to submit, then click on ORDER NOW button or contact us today. Our Professiona Writers will be glad to write your paper from scratch.

We ensure that assignment instructions are followed, the paper is written from scratch. If you are not satisfied by our service, you can either request for refund or unlimited revisions for your order at absolutely no extra pay. Once the writer has completed your paper, the editors check your paper for any grammar/formatting/plagiarism mistakes, then the final paper is sent to your email.

Writing Features

Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

Privacy| Confidentiality

Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

We do not share your personal information with any company or person. We have also ensured that the ordering process is secure; you can check the security feature in the browser. For confidentiality purposes, all papers are sent to your personal email. If you have any questions, contact us any time via email, live chat or our phone number.

Our Clients Testimonials

  • I appreciate help on the assignment. It was hard for me but am good to go now

    Impact of pollution on Environment
  • Am happy now having completed the very difficult assignment

    Creative Message Strategies
  • Your writer did a fine job on the revisions. The paper is now ok

    Ethics: Theory and Practice
  • The paper was so involving but am happy it is done. Will reach you with more assignments

    Title: Privatization in or of America
  • I expected perfection in terms of grammar and I am happy. Lecturer is always on our head but was pleased with my paper. Once again, thanks a lot

    Title: Bundaberg Inquiry
  • The paper looks perfect now, thank to the writer

    Health Care Systems
  • You helped me complete several other tasks as you handled paper. wonna thank you

    Critique Paper on Political Change
A Short List of our Services
Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

Related Articles

Sample paper on Thomas Burger and Marian Burger versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue 809 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1987)

Get more from us…

Would you like this sample paper to be sent to your email or would you like to receive weekly articles on how to write your assignments? You can simply send us your request on how to write your paper and we will email you a free guide within 24-36 hours. Kindly subscribe below!

Email Address: support@globalcompose.com