How to Win an IRS Hobby Loss Audit: Lessons from Tax Court Cases

Why IRS Hobby Loss Audits Matter

One of the most expensive mistakes a taxpayer can make is assuming that an activity qualifies as a business simply because it generates income or has been operated for several years.

Under Internal Revenue Code Section 183, the IRS may disallow deductions if an activity is not engaged in for profit. When that happens, taxpayers may find themselves paying tax on income while losing valuable deductions for expenses incurred in generating that income.

The consequences can be significant. Additional tax, penalties, and interest can accumulate quickly, particularly when losses have been claimed for multiple years.

If you are unfamiliar with the basic hobby loss rules, I recommend first reading my article, Hobby vs Business Tax Rules: How the IRS Determines Deductible Expenses . That article explains Internal Revenue Code Section 183, the IRS profit motive test, and the nine factors the IRS considers when determining whether an activity is operated as a business or a hobby.

Key Takeaway:
The IRS does not require a business to earn a profit every year. The IRS requires evidence that the taxpayer is genuinely trying to earn a profit.

The Law Behind Hobby Loss Audits

IRC Section 183(a) generally disallows deductions attributable to an activity not engaged in for profit, except as otherwise provided in Section 183(b). Section 183(c) defines an activity not engaged in for profit as one that lacks the profit objective required under IRC Sections 162 or 212.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.183-2(a) provides that the determination is made by examining all facts and circumstances. The regulation specifically states that greater weight is given to objective facts than to a taxpayer's statement of intent.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.183-2(b) identifies nine factors used by the IRS and courts when evaluating profit motive. No single factor controls the outcome.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.183-1(d) also allows multiple related activities to be treated as a single activity when there is a sufficient organizational and economic relationship between them. This regulation played a critical role in several taxpayer victories discussed below.

The Nine Factors Under Treas. Reg. §1.183-2

1. The manner in which the activity is conducted.
2. The expertise of the taxpayer or advisers.
3. The time and effort devoted to the activity.
4. The expectation that assets may appreciate.
5. The taxpayer's success in similar activities.
6. The history of income and losses.
7. The amount of occasional profits earned.
8. The taxpayer's financial status.
9. Personal pleasure or recreation associated with the activity.

While taxpayers often focus on the history of losses, the Tax Court repeatedly emphasizes that no single factor controls the outcome.

Taxpayers Who Won

Engdahl v. Commissioner

Engdahl remains one of the most important hobby loss cases ever decided. The taxpayers operated an American Saddle Bred horse breeding business that generated losses for many years. The IRS argued that the continuing losses demonstrated the absence of a profit motive.

The Tax Court disagreed.

The court was impressed by the taxpayers' extensive preparation before entering the business. They consulted veterinarians, trainers, industry professionals, and reference materials before establishing the operation. They learned that a horse breeding business often required five to ten years before reaching profitability. The taxpayers purchased a ranch, constructed facilities, maintained detailed records, advertised extensively, and devoted between 35 and 55 hours per week to the operation.

The court also found it significant that neither taxpayer participated for recreational enjoyment. They viewed the operation as work rather than entertainment. In addition, the ranch and breeding stock had appreciated substantially in value.

Lesson: Long term losses alone do not create a hobby if taxpayers operate in a businesslike manner and maintain a genuine profit objective.

Keanini v. Commissioner

The taxpayers operated a dog breeding business, dog grooming operation, and quarantine sponsorship activity. The IRS attempted to isolate the breeding activity and argue that it lacked a profit motive.

The Tax Court found that the activities were economically integrated and should be evaluated as a single business. The operations shared customers, facilities, and business objectives. The court concluded that the combined activity was operated for profit.

Lesson: Related business activities should not always be viewed separately. Treas. Reg. §1.183-1(d) can allow taxpayers to aggregate complementary operations into a single profit motivated activity.

Topping v. Commissioner

Topping involved a taxpayer who participated extensively in competitive equestrian events while also operating a successful interior design business.

The IRS argued that the horse activities were personal and recreational. The taxpayer demonstrated that participation in the equestrian community directly generated interior design clients. Horse shows provided access to affluent potential customers who later hired the taxpayer for design projects. The court found a direct business relationship between the activities.

Lesson: Marketing and networking activities may be deductible when they directly contribute to generating business revenue.

Metz v. Commissioner

Metz involved a large Arabian horse breeding operation that generated substantial losses over many years.

Despite the losses, the court concluded that the taxpayers possessed the required profit objective. The court emphasized extensive business records, expert consultation, operational changes, market analysis, and efforts to improve profitability. The taxpayers continuously adapted their operation rather than simply accepting losses.

Lesson: Courts focus on objective evidence of profit motive, not merely whether profits have been achieved.

Taxpayers Who Lost

Golanty v. Commissioner

Golanty is frequently cited because it illustrates how taxpayers lose hobby loss cases.

The taxpayer possessed substantial interest in Arabian horse breeding and spent considerable time studying the industry. She purchased horses, attended shows, read books, consulted breeders, and acquired property for breeding activities.

Despite these efforts, the Tax Court concluded that the activity lacked the necessary profit objective. The court focused on the absence of a realistic plan for achieving profitability and the failure to implement sufficient operational changes designed to improve financial results.

Lesson: Knowledge, enthusiasm, and hard work are not enough. Taxpayers must demonstrate a realistic path toward profitability.

Giles v. Commissioner

Giles provides another example where the taxpayer's actions failed to support a genuine profit objective. The court found that personal enjoyment and the absence of persuasive business evidence outweighed factors supporting business treatment.

Lesson: Courts look beyond stated intentions and focus on objective conduct.

What Records Impressed the Court?

Reviewing the successful cases reveals several recurring themes:

• Written business plans.
• Separate accounting records.
• Detailed income and expense tracking.
• Budgets and profitability analysis.
• Industry research and expert consultations.
• Advertising and marketing records.
• Documented operational changes designed to improve profitability.
• Evidence supporting asset appreciation.

The courts repeatedly rewarded taxpayers who treated their activities like businesses rather than personal pursuits.

Common Mistakes That Destroy Deductions

• Failing to maintain books and records.
• Operating without a business plan.
• Ignoring repeated losses.
• Failing to change unsuccessful strategies.
• Commingling personal and business finances.
• Relying solely on personal enjoyment or enthusiasm.
• Inability to explain how profits will eventually be generated.

Hobby Loss Audit Survival Checklist

• Maintain separate business bank accounts.
• Retain receipts and supporting documentation.
• Prepare annual budgets and forecasts.
• Track profitability metrics.
• Document consultations with experts.
• Review operations regularly and implement changes when necessary.
• Develop a written plan demonstrating how the activity will eventually become profitable.
• Preserve evidence supporting appreciation of business assets.

Audit Tip:
The strongest evidence of profit motive is not what a taxpayer says during an audit. The strongest evidence is what the taxpayer documented before the audit began.

Schedule a Consultation

Final Thoughts

As discussed in my article, Hobby vs Business Tax Rules: How the IRS Determines Deductible Expenses , profitability is only one factor in the IRS analysis.

The Tax Court cases discussed above demonstrate that taxpayers who operate in a professional, businesslike manner and can demonstrate a genuine intent to earn a profit often prevail even after years of losses. Conversely, taxpayers who fail to maintain records, ignore recurring losses, or cannot articulate a realistic path to profitability often lose.

The best time to prepare for a hobby loss audit is before one begins. The documentation and business practices that persuaded the courts in Engdahl, Keanini, Topping, and Metz remain just as persuasive today.