                          T.C. Memo. 2000-178



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



 KENNETH J. NISSLEY AND TERRI C. CONNOR-NISSLEY, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20757-98.                         Filed May 30, 2000.



     W. Curtis Elliott, Jr., William R. Culp, Jr.,

and Niles A. Elber, for petitioners.

     Timothy S. Sinnott, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:     Respondent determined

deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income taxes for the taxable

years 1994, 1995, and 1996 in the amounts of $9,189, $9,446, and

$7,495, respectively.
                                - 2 -


     The issue for decision by the Court is whether petitioners

engaged in their Amway activity for profit within the meaning of

section 183.1   We hold that they did not.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.   Petitioners resided in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the time

that their petition was filed in this case.

     Petitioner husband (Mr. Nissley) graduated in 1982 with a

bachelor of science degree in accounting from Manchester College

in North Manchester, Indiana.   He was licensed as a certified

public accountant (C.P.A.) in 1982.     Thereafter, from 1982

through 1987 he worked as a staff auditor, a senior auditor, and

ultimately as an audit manager for the Big 5 accounting firm of

Price Waterhouse.

     Since January 1988, Mr. Nissley has been employed on a full-

time basis (40-50 hours per week) as the director of information

systems and planning and procurement for Creative Expressions

Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana.     His salary for 1994, 1995,

and 1996 was $65,674, $67,916, and $70,810, respectively.




     1
        All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,
in effect for the taxable years in issue, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All
amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
                               - 3 -


     Petitioner wife (Mrs. Nissley) graduated in 1983 with a

bachelor of science degree in accounting from Indiana University.

She was licensed as a C.P.A. in 1985.

     Upon graduating from college, Mrs. Nissley began employment

with Price Waterhouse, where she worked full time, providing

consulting services (related to financial systems) to Fortune 500

companies.   At the time that she resigned from the firm in 1991,

she was a senior manager.

     After her resignation from Price Waterhouse and through the

middle of 1994, Mrs. Nissley served as the director of

information systems for Administar Information Technologies of

Indianapolis, Indiana, earning $57,467 in 1994.   Thereafter,

through the end of 1994, Mrs. Nissley was self-employed as a

business consultant, earning a net profit of $23,193 (based on

gross receipts of $31,735 and total expenses of $8,542) for that

year.   Her combined salary and net profit from self-employment in

1994 was $80,660.

     In January 1995, Mrs. Nissley obtained a full-time position

as president and chief executive officer of Pathway Family Center

of Southfield, Michigan (Pathway), a nonprofit, health-care

organization dedicated to the treatment and prevention of

substance abuse by adolescents.   Mrs. Nissley continued to hold

this position at the time of trial (November 1999).   Her salary

for 1995 and 1996 was $75,010 per year.
                               - 4 -


     During the years in issue, petitioners operated an Amway

distributorship under the name of “KT Enterprises”.   Petitioners

began their Amway activity in May or June 1991, when they were

recruited as “downline” distributors by an “upline” distributor.

At the time of trial, petitioners were continuing to pursue their

Amway activity.

     Amway is a supplier of household and personal use products

that are sold by individuals (distributors) through direct

marketing.   An Amway distributor purchases Amway products for

resale to both customers and “downline” distributors, as well as

for personal use.

     At least in theory, Amway distributors generate receipts by

selling Amway products directly to customers and by recruiting

new distributors.   The new recruits become “downline"

distributors of the sponsoring distributor and a part of his or

her organization.   (The sponsoring distributor is referred to as

the “upline” distributor.)   In turn, each “downline” distributor

is encouraged to sponsor additional new distributors, all of whom

become a part of the initial distributor’s organization.   (The

process of recruiting new distributors is often referred to as

“building the legs” of a distributor's network.)   Amway does not

assign exclusive geographical territories to any distributor, nor

does Amway impose a minimum sales quota on any distributor.
                                - 5 -


     Amway maintains a “pyramid” incentive system.   Under this

system, an “upline” distributor receives a bonus based on the

volume of sales generated by his or her “downline” distributors.2

Thus, the system presumes that the “upline” distributor’s

potential for profit will increase as his or her network of

“downline” distributors becomes wider and deeper.3

     Because the “upline” distributor’s bonus is based on the

volume of sales generated by “downline” distributors, such bonus

is not directly affected by a “downline” distributor’s

profitability or lack of profitability.

     The Amway “pyramid” incentive system is promoted by Amway in

the form of the “6-4-2 plan”.   Under the “6-4-2 plan”, each Amway

distributor is encouraged to personally recruit 6 “downline”

distributors, each of whom in turn is encouraged to recruit at

least 4 “downline” distributors, each of whom in turn is

encouraged to recruit at least 2 “downline” distributors (for a

total of 78 “downline” distributors in the initial distributor’s

organization).   Amway promotes the “6-4-2 plan” as the


     2
        The “upline” distributor’s bonus is also based on the
volume of sales generated by the “upline” distributor himself or
herself. However, the volume of such sales is generally minimal,
and the portion of the bonus attributable to such sales is
negligible.
     3
        The “width” of a network refers to the number of
“downline” distributors that are personally sponsored by the
distributor in question, and “length” refers to the number of
“downline” distributors that make up each “leg” of the network.
                               - 6 -


theoretical break-even point for a distributorship, assuming that

the distributor and each “downline” distributor within the

distributor’s organization purchases $200 of Amway products per

month, and that the distributor does not have expenses exceeding

$2,000 per month.   At least in theory, the potential for profit

is enhanced as each of the 78 “downline” distributors in the

distributor’s network successfully implements the “6-4-2 plan”.

     The Amway “6-4-2 plan” does not provide meaningful guidance

to distributors regarding how expenses incurred in pursuing an

Amway activity might be reduced.

     The structure of the Amway “pyramid” incentive system

effectively serves to discourage distributors from spending their

time personally trying to sell Amway products.   In contrast, the

system effectively serves to encourage distributors to spend

their time trying to recruit an ever-increasing number of

“downline” distributors.   Petitioners themselves spent little

time personally trying to sell Amway products and concentrated

instead on trying to recruit (and retain) “downline”

distributors.4   Gross income received by petitioners consisted

principally of bonuses earned from the sale (or personal

consumption) of Amway products by “downline” distributors.



     4
        At the end of 1994, 1995, and 1996, petitioners had a
total of 75, 77, and 79 “downline” distributors, respectively, in
their organization.
                               - 7 -


     As Amway distributors, petitioners were entitled to purchase

for their personal use Amway products at distributor’s cost

without the customary 30-percent markup.   In 1994, 1995, and

1996, petitioners purchased Amway products valued at $2,133,

$3,282, and $3,786, respectively, for their personal use.

     Since inception, petitioners have treated their Amway

activity as a proprietorship on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From

Business, of their Federal income tax return.   Petitioners

describe their activity on Schedule C as “product distribution”

but do not identify the activity as an Amway distributorship.

     Petitioners have never succeeded in earning a profit from

their Amway activity.   Rather, petitioners have consistently

claimed losses from their Amway activity and have used such

losses to offset their other income, principally salary (or net

profit from business consulting) from their full-time positions.

The following schedule reflects the losses claimed by petitioners

from their Amway activity on Schedule C of their tax returns for

1991 through 1998:

               Year                 Net Loss
               1991 (part year)     $ 10,258
               1992                   27,726
               1993                   19,705
               1994                   27,407
               1995                   33,539
               1996                   27,787
               1997                   22,225
               1998                   19,107
                                    $187,754
                                   - 8 -


At the time of trial (November 1999), petitioners anticipated

that for 1999, they would once again incur a loss from their

Amway activity.

     Petitioners determined their net losses from their Amway

activity on Schedule C of their tax returns for 1991 through

1998 as follows:



                               1991        1992       1993      1994

     Gross income1            $ 2,796      $11,387   $19,691   $ 5,609
     Less: expenses
       (incl. home office)     13,054       39,113    39,396    33,016
     Net loss                 $10,258      $27,726   $19,705   $27,407


                               1995        1996       1997      1998
     Gross income1            $12,524    $17,129     $ 7,302   $ 7,584
     Less: expenses
       (incl. home office)     46,063       44,916    29,527    26,691
     Net loss                 $33,539      $27,787   $22,225   $19,107



                  1
                  For petitioners, gross income was essentially the
            bonuses earned from the sale (or personal consumption)
            of Amway products by “downline” distributors.
            Petitioners themselves sold relatively few Amway
            products, although they did order such products
            on behalf of “downline” distributors.
                                   - 9 -


     Petitioners claimed expenses related to their Amway activity

on Schedule C of their tax returns for 1991 through 1998 as

follows:

                                 1991        1992      1993        1994
     Bad debts                    ---         ---      ---     $     835
     Car expenses                 ---      $ 8,170   $10,173       6,794
     Commissions/fees          $ 1,083       5,064     8,286       4,379
     Interest expense             ---         ---       ---          672
     Office expense              2,497       5,478    10,646       6,587
     Repairs                      ---           62      ---         ---
     Supplies                    4,257       7,875     1,517         —
     Travel                      4,915       7,637     5,633       4,858
     Meals/entertainment1          302         794     1,024       1,002
     Utilities                    ---         ---       ---        4,861
     Other expenses
        Awards/gifts             ---           57      ---         ---
        Books/subscriptions/
           tapes                 ---          ---       ---        369
        Seminars                 ---         1,384      ---      1,394
     Use of home                             2,592     2,117     1,265
       Total expenses          $13,054     $39,113   $39,396   $33,016

                1
                 Net after 20 percent reduction for 1991-93 and
           50 percent reduction for 1994 per sec. 274(n).



                                1995        1996      1997         1998

     Advertising               $ 2,078     $   326   $ 1,105   $     952
     Car expenses               13,214      11,070     8,604       7,839
     Commissions/fees            6,461       5,152       864        ---
     Depreciation                  679         517       539        ---
     Interest expense              488        ---        458         423
     Legal/professional           ---         ---        310        ---
     Office expense              8,371      11,026     5,796       5,942
     Supplies                      676       3,985     3,712       4,856
     Travel                      6,664       5,287     4,596       3,872
     Meals/entertainment1        2,125       1,466     1,496         989
     Other expenses
        Books/subscriptions/
           tapes                   992         884     ---        ---
        Seminars                 1,805       2,376    2,047      1,818
        Uniforms                  ---          342     ---        ---
     Use of home                 2,510       2,485     ---        ---
       Total expenses          $46,063     $44,916   $29,527   $26,691


                1
                 Net after 50 percent reduction for 1995-98
           per sec. 274(n).
                                - 10 -


     For the years in issue, petitioners claimed “car expenses”

for a 1993 Oldsmobile and/or a 1994 BMW 535i based on claimed

“business” miles driven.   Petitioners reported “business” miles,

commuting miles, and other mileage on Schedule C of their tax

returns for the years in issue as follows:

                                 1994     1995     1996

     “Business” miles           23,398   38,277   29,945
     Commuting                   4,320    3,000    3,000
     Other                       2,603    2,456    4,957
       Total                    30,321   43,733   37,902



     Petitioners claimed deductions for the cost of attending

Amway conventions and seminars on a regular basis in cities such

as New York, Denver, Atlanta, Orlando, and Minneapolis.

     At the time that petitioners were recruited as Amway

distributors in mid-1991, they had no prior experience with the

Amway-type of activity.    Since that time, they have relied only

on advice from one of their “upline” distributors and other

interested Amway individuals.

     Other than accepting the Amway “6-4-2 plan”, petitioners did

not maintain a written business plan for their Amway activity,

nor did they maintain a written budget for the activity.

Petitioners did not prepare a break-even analysis for their Amway

activity, nor did they maintain a monthly report of expenses

incurred in pursuing the activity.
                              - 11 -


     A major reason why many individuals remain committed to

Amway is the congenial sense of family and the gratifying

motivational feeling that they derive from participating in the

activity.

     Petitioners have “no intentions of getting out of * * *

Amway”.

                              OPINION

     Under section 183(a), if an activity is not engaged in for

profit, then no deduction attributable to the activity shall be

allowed except to the extent provided by section 183(b).    In

pertinent part, section 183(b) allows deductions to the extent of

gross income derived from an activity that is not engaged in for

profit.

     Section 183(c) defines an activity not engaged in for profit

as “any activity other than one with respect to which deductions

are allowable for the taxable year under section 162 or under

paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212".   Deductions are allowable

under section 162 or under section 212(1) or (2) if the taxpayer

is engaged in the activity with the “actual and honest objective

of making a profit”.   Ronnen v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 74, 91

(1988); Dreicer v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 642, 645 (1982), affd.

without opinion 702 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

     The existence of the requisite profit objective is a

question of fact that must be decided on the basis of the entire
                              - 12 -


record.   See Benz v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 375, 382 (1974).    In

resolving this factual question, greater weight is accorded

objective facts than a taxpayer's statement of intent.    See

Westbrook v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 875-876 (5th Cir. 1995),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-634; sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.    For

purposes of deciding whether the taxpayer has the requisite

profit objective, profit means economic profit, independent of

tax savings.   See Surloff v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 210, 233

(1983).   The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he or she

engaged in the activity with the objective of making a profit.

See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84

(1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Elliott v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 960, 971 (1988), (“Petitioners bear the

burden of proving that they engaged in the Amway distributorship

with the intent to make a profit”) affd. without published

opinion 899 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1990).

     The regulations set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors

that may be considered in deciding whether a profit objective

exists.   These factors are: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer

carries on the activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his

advisers; (3) the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in

carrying on the activity; (4) the expectation that the assets

used in the activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of

the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar
                               - 13 -


activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or losses with

respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if

any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer;

and (9) any elements indicating personal pleasure or recreation.

See sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.

     No single factor, nor even the existence of a majority of

factors favoring or disfavoring the existence of a profit

objective, is controlling.    See id.   Rather, the relevant facts

and circumstances of the case are determinative.    See Golanty v.

Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 426 (1979), affd. without published

opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981).

     Based on all of the facts and circumstances in the present

case, we hold that petitioners have failed to prove that they

engaged in their Amway activity for profit within the meaning of

section 183.   See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,

supra; Welch v. Helvering, supra; Elliott v. Commissioner, supra.

     We will not analyze in depth all 9 of the factors enumerated

in the regulation but rather focus on some of the more important

ones that inform our decision.

     First, the history of consistent and substantial losses

incurred by petitioners in their Amway activity is indicative of

a lack of profit objective.   See Golanty v. Commissioner, supra

at 427; sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.    Since the inception

of their Amway activity in mid-1991, petitioners have never
                             - 14 -


earned a profit but have incurred losses for 8 consecutive years.

Indeed, at the time of trial in November 1999, petitioners

expected to incur another loss for what would be the ninth

consecutive year.

     Moreover, petitioners’ losses have been substantial in

amount, ranging between $19,107 and $33,539 for each of the 7

years during which petitioners have conducted their Amway

activity for a full 12 months.   Indeed, petitioners’ aggregate

losses for the 7-1/2-year period from mid-1991 through 1998

amount to $187,754 and average over $25,000 on an adjusted annual

basis.

     Further, there has not been any significant trend

discernible in the history of petitioners’ losses.   For 1994

through 1996, the 3 taxable years in issue, petitioners incurred

losses of $27,407, $33,539, and $27,787, respectively.   While it

is true that petitioners’ losses have decreased since 1996, it is

also true that a comparison of 1997 and 1996 demonstrates that

petitioners’ gross income decreased at a faster rate (57 percent)

than did petitioners’ expenses (34 percent).   The same is true

when 1998 and 1996 are compared.

     Also relevant is the fact that “the goal must be to realize

a profit on the entire operation, which presupposes not only

future net earnings but also sufficient net earnings to recoup

the losses which have meanwhile been sustained in the intervening
                               - 15 -


years.”   Bessenyey v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 261, 274 (1965),

affd. 379 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1967).      In the present case, there is

no persuasive evidence that petitioners will enjoy “future net

earnings”, much less that petitioners will be able to recoup the

substantial losses ($187,754 through 1998) “which have meanwhile

been sustained”.

     Second, we are not convinced that petitioners conducted

their Amway activity in a businesslike manner.     See sec. 1.183-

2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.    Although petitioners may have

maintained a separate bank account and records for their Amway

activity, such bank account and records appear to have been

maintained principally to satisfy substantiation requirements

imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and thus to “guarantee” the

deductibility of expenses.    In contrast, such bank account and

records do not appear to have been used as analytic or diagnostic

tools in an effort to achieve profitability of petitioners’ Amway

activity.   As we have previously stated:

     the keeping of books and records may represent nothing
     more than a conscious attention to detail. In this
     case, there has been no showing that books and records
     were kept for the purpose of cutting expenses,
     increasing profits, and evaluating the overall
     performance of the operation. The petitioner reviewed
     her records, but she has failed to show that she used
     them to improve the operation of the enterprise.
     [Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 430.]

      Moreover, petitioners did not maintain certain types of

records, nor did petitioners employ certain elementary business
                              - 16 -


practices, that one would expect of individuals pursuing an

activity with a profit objective.    See Ogden v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1999-397; Theisen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-

539; Hart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-55.    Thus, petitioners

did not maintain any written business plan for their Amway

activity (other than the Amway “6-4-2 plan”).    Further,

petitioners did not maintain either a written budget or a monthly

report of expenses, nor did petitioners prepare a break-even

analysis.

     Also of significance is the fact that petitioners had no

experience with the Amway-type of activity prior to the time that

they were recruited by an Amway distributor.    See sec. 1.183-

2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.   Since that time, petitioners have

relied only on advice from one of their “upline” distributors and

other interested Amway individuals.    Yet, under the Amway system,

the “upline” distributor’s bonus is not directly affected by the

“downline” distributor’s profitability or lack of profitability;

rather, it is the “downline” distributor’s volume of sales that

is important to the “upline” distributor.    Nevertheless,

petitioners have steadfastly refused to seek counsel from

disinterested third parties regarding means by which their Amway

activity might be made profitable.     See Poast v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1994-399 (“for the most part, petitioners’ advisers

were not experts as much as they were upliners with a financial
                              - 17 -


stake in petitioners’ retail and downline sales.”); Ogden v.

Commissioner, supra (“Amway distributors may be biased when

discussing Amway because they have a natural desire to advance

the organization and/or obtain income from a downliner.”).

     Petitioners have steadfastly refused to seek counsel from

disinterested third parties, even though the advice they have

received from interested Amway individuals has done nothing to

reverse petitioners’ history of uninterrupted and substantial

losses.   Furthermore, the record suggests that the “advice”

petitioners received has consisted of little more than

platitudes, generalities, and encouragement to “stick with it”.

     Also noteworthy is the fact that after her resignation from

Administar Information Technologies in mid-1994, Mrs. Nissley was

able to generate immediately a net profit as a self-employed

business consultant, earning $23,193 based on gross receipts of

$31,735 and total expenses of $8,542, for the last 6 months of

1994.   By contrast, in their Amway activity, petitioners have

incurred nothing but substantial losses for 8 consecutive years.

     Third, section 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax Regs., provides in

part that “Substantial income from sources other than the

activity (particularly if the losses from the activity generate

substantial tax benefits) may indicate that the activity is not

engaged in for profit especially if there are personal or
                               - 18 -


recreational elements involved.”    Golanty v. Commissioner, 72

T.C. at 428-429; see Ransom v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-381.

     In the present case, petitioners are well-educated,

professional individuals, licensed as C.P.A.’s, who earn

substantial salaries from their full-time employment, as

demonstrated by the following table for the years in issue:

                           1994       1995       1996
         Mr. Nissley     $ 65,674   $ 67,916   $ 70,810
         Mrs. Nissley      80,660     75,010     75,010
           Total         $146,334   $142,926   $145,820


     For 1994, 1995, and 1996, petitioners claimed losses from

their Amway activity in the amounts of $27,407, $33,539, and

$27,787, respectively.    Petitioners used those losses to reduce

their compensation and other income, thereby decreasing their

taxable income and achieving substantial tax savings.     Those tax

savings helped to finance everyday expenses such as outlays for

car and home.5




     5
        For 1994, 1995, and 1995, petitioners deducted car
expenses in the amounts of $6,794, $13,214, and $11,070,
respectively. For each of the first two of those years, the
amount deducted for just this single expense exceeded
petitioners’ reported gross income from Amway for the year.
     For 1994, 1995, and 1996, petitioners also claimed
deductions for use of home in the amounts of $1,265, $2,510, and
$2,485, respectively; for 1994, they also claimed a deduction for
utilities in the amount of $4,861. For 1994, the sum of just
these two deductions exceeded petitioners’ reported gross income
from Amway for that year.
                              - 19 -


     Finally, this Court has observed that “there are significant

elements of personal pleasure attached to the activities of an

Amway distributorship” and that “an Amway distributorship

presents taxpayers with opportunities to generate business

deductions for essentially personal expenditures.”    Brennan v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-60; see also sec. 1.183-2(b)(9),

Income Tax Regs.; cf. sec. 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax Regs.,

regarding the reference to “personal or recreational elements”

quoted above.

     In the present case, the personal dimensions of petitioners’

Amway activity indicate that such activity was not engaged in for

profit.   The fact that petitioners have “no intentions of getting

out of * * * Amway” underscores this conclusion.6

     The record suggests that petitioners enjoy the same

congenial sense of family and the same gratifying motivational

feeling from participating in their Amway activity as do many

other individuals who remain committed to Amway.    The record also

suggests that Amway constitutes an important part of petitioners’

social life.

     In addition, during the years in issue, petitioners attended

Amway conventions and seminars on a regular basis in cities such


     6
        Moreover, a taxpayer who intends to pursue an activity
“no matter what” cannot be said to pursue the activity in a
businesslike manner. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.,
discussed supra.
                              - 20 -


as New York, Denver, Atlanta, Orlando, and Minneapolis.    For the

3 years in issue, petitioners incurred expenses for travel, meals

and entertainment (M&E), and seminars in the following amounts:

                            1994         1995      1996
          Travel          $ 4,858      $ 6,664   $ 5,287
          M&E (gross)       2,004        4,250     2,932
          Seminars          1,394        1,805     2,376
            Total         $ 8,256      $12,719   $10,595


For 1994 and 1995, the total of just these amounts exceeds

petitioners’ reported gross income from Amway for those years.

     Moreover, petitioners received a personal benefit from their

Amway activity through the ability to purchase Amway products for

their own use at distributor’s cost without the customary 30-

percent markup.   In 1994, 1995, and 1996, petitioners purchased,

for their personal use, Amway products valued at $2,133, $3,282,

and $3,786, respectively.   See Ogden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1999-397, where the purchase of $1,800 to $2,400 worth of Amway

products per year for the taxpayers’ personal use was regarded by

the Court as a factor supporting the conclusion that the

taxpayers lacked a profit objective.

     Petitioners estimate that they devoted between 51 and 80

hours per week to their Amway activity, with Mrs. Nissley

spending 21 to 40 hours per week and Mr. Nissley spending 30 to

40 hours per week.   Petitioners contend that devoting so much

time to their Amway activity is indicative of a profit objective.
                               - 21 -


See sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs.    However, we regard

petitioners’ estimate as excessive.     See Kropp v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2000-148 (“As a trier of fact, it is our duty to

listen to the testimony, observe the demeanor of the witnesses,

weigh the evidence, and determine what we believe.”); see also

Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986) (“we are not

required to accept the self-serving testimony of petitioner * * *

as gospel.”); cf. Diaz v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972).

In any event, many individuals devote considerable time to their

hobbies and similar activities.

     In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioners are not

entitled to deduct the losses from their Amway activity for the

years in issue.    However, pursuant to the provisions of section

183(b), petitioners are entitled to deduct expenses to the extent

of gross income from their Amway activity.

     We have carefully considered all of the contentions made by

petitioners for a holding contrary to that expressed herein, and

to the extent not touched on above, we find such contentions to

be unpersuasive.

     To give effect to the foregoing,



                                      Decision will be entered

                                under to Rule 155.
