Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Keanini v. Commissioner

94 T.C. 41 (1990)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

Keanini v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

94 T.C. 41 (1990)

Facts

Moanikeala Jellinger and her husband, Samuel Keanini (the couple) (plaintiffs) built a kennel in Hawaii in 1982 and began breeding, selling, and showing poodles in national championships; grooming dogs; and sponsoring dogs in quarantine full-time. Jellinger worked exclusively in the dog business, and Keanini, a police officer, spent an average of 20 to 30 hours in the dog business a week. The couple regularly attended training sessions and seminars to improve their business and grooming skills, and they became the only nationally certified dog groomers in the state. The couple gained a national reputation as breeders of champion miniature poodles. Customers who purchased a poodle from the couple agreed in writing to give the couple a poodle from the customer’s first litter and to use the couple as groomers. The couple also integrated their quarantine business, in which they sponsored dogs undergoing the required 120 days of quarantine after entering Hawaii, with their grooming and breeding business by fostering relationships with the quarantining dogs’ owners. As the couple became more successful, they hired additional workers to help them run their business. Between 1982 and 1988, the couple deducted their losses associated with their dog business on their federal income-tax returns. Though the business did not become profitable until 1987, each year of that period saw increased income over the previous year. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) determined that the couple did not engage in the dog-breeding operation for profit and disallowed their deduction of losses incurred in 1982 and 1983. The couple petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination, arguing that they engaged in dog breeding for profit, in tandem with their grooming and quarantining business.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nims, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership