Reply

 Please reply o the student discussion post and reply to each question that they answered with you thoughts. 200 words

A.L

The judges ruling was based on many factors that deemed the dog breeding was being operated without the intent for profit. The operation was not ran in a “business-like” manner. For instance, there was no issuance of either a zoning variance or pertinent licensing. Shantoma was operated out of the home and there was no phone or directory kept separately for the business and transfer of money took place from a personal checking account, not a specified business account. The records kept were sub par and offered no cost analysis or profit forecast, and the bookkeepers position was not paid for this additional annual deed. There was also no issuance of insurance for the dogs. 

From a personal outward perspective, no I do not agree with the judges ruling. Aside from what is considered “business-like” and what isn’t, it seems clear to me in a common sense aspect that the operation was intended to be operated for profit. However, the case states, “In determining whether the requisite intention to make a profit exists, greater weight is to be given to the objective facts than to the tax-payers self-serving characterization of his intent.” Therefore, based on the proof provided by the Burgers, and their lack of professionalism surrounding the operation, I do understand the judges ruling. 

I would advise a client to perform and write up a purpose statement/business plan. As well as operate the business separately from their personal finances, acquiring all necessary license and registration requirements. I would also advise investing in an accounting software program that can complete the basic profit/loss analysis and organize their finances.