Court Opinion

ID: 9450849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:59:38.586864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:28.772443
License: Public Domain

*730DUFFY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In 1952, taxpayer realized that upon retirement from his position of trust with General Motors, his annual income would be reduced from $50,000 to $15,-000. He decided to supplement his income by lecturing on films which he would make on big game hunts in Africa, Alaska and other places. He learned that professional big game hunters and lecturers earned as much as $18,000 a year.
In 1952 and 1953, taxpayer took courses in photography. He consulted with his instructors as to the type of equipment he would need for his purposes.
The primary factor in deciding the issues in this case is the matter of intent. Did taxpayer intend to engage in business for the making of a profit? In my view, the record in this case clearly establishes taxpayer’s intent to film big game animals in various parts of the world and then to exhibit the films for profit during the course of lectures which he would give.
In 1957, taxpayer sent out many letters soliciting lecture engagements. Thereafter he sent out approximately 1500 brochures annually. These would be sent to sportsmen, clubs, PTA groups, churches and other organizations. In these advertising letters and brochures, the amount of his lecture fees was stated.
The majority makes some point that on one safari, taxpayer’s youngest son accompanied him. However, the son was an expert photographer who greatly assisted his father on this trip. The record discloses that taxpayer would have had to pay $70 a day for the services of a photographer of similar competence.
During the years involved in this suit, taxpayer gave numerous lectures and received compensation from all but seven. He also was recompensed for his appearance on a television show in 1958.
It is true that taxpayer’s lecturing venture was not profitable although he did realize a profit in 1963. “However, an occupation will not be excluded from the classification of business merely because it actually results in a loss instead of a profit.” Vanderbilt v. Comm., 57 T.C.Mem.Dec. 917, 920.
In Doggett v. Burnet, 62 App.D.C. 103, 65 F.2d 191, at page 194, the Court of Appeals said: “We think a better test to be applied here is whether or not the person engaged in a legitimate enterprise shows a willingness to invest time and capital on the future outcome of the enterprise, whether it be successful or unsuccessful.”
The majority opinion cites Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218. The Court there stated, page 291, 80 S.Ct. at page 1200 — “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” To me, the intent of the taxpayer was crystal clear. I have the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. I would reverse.