Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-60217

MICHAEL A. OGDEN
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-60220

MICHAEL A. OGDEN; COLLEEN OGDEN,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeals from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

March 20, 2001
Before:
FARRIS*, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Michael A. Ogden and Colleen Ogden appeal the decision of the tax court
denying their petitions for redetermination of federal taxes and imposing an
accuracy-related penalty.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§ 7482(a), and we affirm.
We review for clear error the tax court's profit motive inquiry, see Westbrook
v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 876 (5th Cir. 1995), and determination of negligence
for an accuracy-related penalty, see id. at 880. Clear error exists when this court is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. See
Chamberlain v. Commissioner, 66 F.3d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1995).
We have carefully reviewed the record following skillful and persuasive oral
argument by counsel for the petitioner. We agree that the tax court was not
compelled to enter the findings that it made. Our review, however, is to determine
whether these findings are supported by the record. They are. There is, on this
record, no basis for a firm conviction that an error has been made.
The record supports the finding that the Ogdens' objective was not profit but
to purchase household goods and make financial deductions to offset their wage
income. We therefore affirm the tax court's determination of tax liability. See
2
On April 26, 2000, the court granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate appeals.
2

Westbrook, 68 F.3d at 875-76.
Contrary to the Ogdens' contention, evidence of profit is not determinative of
whether a profit motive exists. See id. at 876 (no single tax regulation factor, nor
the existence of a majority of factors, is determinative of whether a profit motive
exists). There is overwhelming evidence in the record that, if believed, supports a
conclusion that the Ogdens maintained their Amway activity for deductions,
personal pleasure and to offset wages. The tax court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion for reconsideration. See id.
The record supports the finding that the Ogdens failed to comply with
provisions of the Internal Revenue laws, failed to exercise due care by continuing
with an unprofitable endeavor, and maintained unbusinesslike records. We affirm
the tax court's imposition of an accuracy-related penalty. See Westbrook, 68 F.3d at
880-81.
AFFIRMED.
3