Narrative Opinion Summary
Robert McKelvey's appeal of the Tax Court's ruling regarding his inability to deduct expenses related to his tree farm development has been affirmed. The court concurred with the Tax Court's classification of McKelvey’s claimed deductions as “start-up expenses,” which are not immediately deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 162. The court confirmed that McKelvey was not actively “carrying on a trade or business,” as he had only conducted preliminary studies and a pilot planting without actually planting or harvesting trees or making definitive decisions on the types of trees to cultivate. Additionally, McKelvey attempted to renew arguments he had previously abandoned during the Tax Court proceedings, which the court declined to address. The appeal is deemed timely, and the ruling is affirmed, with a note that this disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abandonment of Arguments in Lower Court Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declined to address McKelvey's renewed arguments, which he had previously abandoned during the Tax Court proceedings.
Reasoning: Additionally, McKelvey attempted to renew arguments he had previously abandoned during the Tax Court proceedings, which the court declined to address.
Deductibility of Start-Up Expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 162subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the classification of expenses related to McKelvey's tree farm development as 'start-up expenses,' which are not immediately deductible because the activities did not constitute carrying on a trade or business.
Reasoning: The court concurred with the Tax Court's classification of McKelvey’s claimed deductions as 'start-up expenses,' which are not immediately deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 162.
Definition of Carrying on a Trade or Businesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that McKelvey was not engaged in a trade or business due to his activities being limited to preliminary studies and a pilot planting, without actual planting or harvesting of trees or making definitive business decisions.
Reasoning: The court confirmed that McKelvey was not actively 'carrying on a trade or business,' as he had only conducted preliminary studies and a pilot planting without actually planting or harvesting trees or making definitive decisions on the types of trees to cultivate.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictions of Judicial Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The disposition of the appeal is noted as not for publication and cannot be cited in the circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The appeal is deemed timely, and the ruling is affirmed, with a note that this disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.