                  T.C. Memo. 2010-129



                UNITED STATES TAX COURT



STEVE LACY LOWE AND JANICE MARIE LOWE, Petitioners v.
     COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 16304-08.               Filed June 14, 2010.



     R determined tax deficiencies and accuracy-related
penalties pursuant to sec. 6662(a), I.R.C., for Ps’
2005 and 2006 tax years. Ps and R dispute whether Ps
are entitled to business expense deductions in excess
of gross income from their bass fishing contest
activity.

     Held: Ps are not entitled to the excess business
expense deductions but are not liable for the sec.
6662(a), I.R.C., accuracy-related penalties for 2005
and 2006.



Steve Lacy Lowe and Janice Marie Lowe, pro sese.

Halvor R. Melom, for respondent.
                                 - 2 -

               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     WHERRY, Judge:    This case is before the Court on a petition

for redetermination of alleged Federal income tax deficiencies

that respondent determined for petitioners’ 2005 and 2006 tax

years.    Respondent issued petitioners a notice of deficiency on

April 4, 2008.    Petitioners then filed a timely petition with

this Court on July 2, 2008.     A trial was held on June 29, 2009,

in Los Angeles, California.

     Respondent concedes that petitioners substantiated all of

their claimed income and expenses for the years at issue.    The

issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled to

deductions claimed on their Schedule C, Profit or Loss From

Business, to the extent they exceed their gross income from those

activities.    More specifically, the issue is whether petitioner

husband (Mr. Lowe) was engaged in his bass fishing activity for

profit.    See sec. 183.1

                            FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts and the accompanying exhibits are hereby incorporated by

reference into our findings.     Petitioners were married and filed

joint Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2005 and


     1
      Except as otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect
for the tax years at issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 3 -

2006.   Petitioners resided in California when they filed their

petition.

     During the years at issue petitioner wife (Mrs. Lowe) worked

full time as a “controller” for Fry Steel Co., where she has

worked for over 38 years.   She earned $177,219 and $184,181 in

2005 and 2006, respectively, with an additional $12,000 per year

for taking notes at the board of directors meetings.

     From 1986 to 1999 Mr. Lowe’s only occupation was improving

petitioners’ home, for which he received no income.    Mr. Lowe has

fished for as long as he can remember, fishing only

recreationally before 1999.   Mr. Lowe became interested in

tournament fishing in 1999 when he attended a fishing tournament

with a first-place prize of $6,000.

     In 2005 Mr. Lowe fished in 26 tournaments run by either

American Bass, FLW Strem Series, or Western Outdoor News (WON)

and reported gross income on petitioners’ Schedule C of $4,241.

In 2006 Mr. Lowe fished in 15 tournaments run by those same

organizations and reported $10,932 of gross income.    The entry

fees ranged from $280 to $825 with an additional $325 for a “co-

angler” amateur in FLW events.    When entering American Bass or

WON tournament team events, Mr. Lowe would list his wife as his

co-angler teammate and pay her entry fee, although she would not

actually compete.   In these events Mr. Lowe would single-handedly

take on the rest of the competitors, most or all of whom
                               - 4 -

presumably took advantage of the rules to compete as two-member

teams.   To win or place, Mr. Lowe had to catch more fish with one

hook and line than his competition could catch with two hooks and

lines.   The first-place prizes ranged from $4,000 up to $50,000

and, in some instances, a boat valued by petitioners at $25,000,

depending on the tournament.   If a competitor won sufficient

points, during the year that competitor might qualify for a

yearend national fish-off tournament where first place would pay

$250,000.

     Mr. Lowe was diagnosed with cancer on October 31, 2006, and

underwent chemotherapy from December 2006 through February 2007.

He did not participate in any fishing tournaments in 2007.

     Petitioners have a voluminous library of magazines,

newspapers, books, and videotapes on bass fishing.   Mr. Lowe

reads about and studies fishing 2 or 3 hours a night.   Mr. Lowe

was a regular card-carrying member of American Bass-Professional

Bass Tournament Angler, FLW Outdoors, and US Anglers Choice in

earlier and/or later years and may, although the record is

unclear, have also been a member of these organizations in 2005

and 2006.

     Mr. Lowe consulted friends, including Aaron Martens, about

making money in sports fishing and becoming successful in this

business.   One important aspect of making a profit in the

competitive sport fishing business is obtaining commercial
                                 - 5 -

sponsorships to supplement winnings or reduce expenses.     Towards

the end of 2006 Mr. Lowe consulted Kevin VanDam, a “leading money

winner in the bass fishing industry”, and Denny Brauer, one of

the “largest money [winners] in the business”, on how to make his

business more profitable.   Mr. Lowe was told that the best way to

hook and land a sponsor was to win a major tournament.

     Mrs. Lowe, a professional bookkeeper, assisted Mr. Lowe in

his recordkeeping.   Mr. Lowe did not keep a separate bank account

for the activity, and he has no other source of earned income.

Mr. Lowe has several sponsors and receives $200 worth of lures

each year from his sponsors.

     On their 2003 through 2006 Schedules C, Mr. Lowe listed his

principal business or profession as “PROFESSIONAL FISHING”.     From

2003 to 2006 petitioners reported on their Federal income tax

returns the following amounts of Mrs. Lowe’s salary income, gross

income from the fishing activity, expenses from the fishing

activity, net profit or (loss) from the fishing activity, and

taxable income.

                         Gross                Net Profit
            Mrs.        Income     Expenses    or (Loss)
           Lowe’s         From        From         From
           Salary      Fishing      Fishing      Fishing   Taxable
  Year     Income     Activity     Activity     Activity    Income
  2003    $166,366       $420       $33,007   ($32,587)    $100,936
  2004     168,966      2,550        34,865    (32,315)    103,713
  2005     177,219      4,241        49,067    (44,826)     63,114
  2006     184,181     10,932        48,608    (37,676)    146,484
                                 - 6 -

                              OPINION

I. Mr. Lowe’s Profit Objective

     Respondent contends that the losses related to Mr. Lowe’s

fishing activity were not deductible because the fishing activity

was not engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183.

Section 183(a) generally disallows deductions attributable to

activities 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.”

     The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an

appeal in this case would lie absent stipulation to the contrary,

has held that an activity is engaged in for profit if the

taxpayer’s “predominant, primary or principal objective” in

engaging in the activity was to realize an economic profit

independent of tax savings.   Wolf v. Commissioner, 4 F.3d 709,

713 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-212.   Section 1.183-

2(b), Income Tax Regs., sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors

to be considered in evaluating a taxpayer’s profit objective:

(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 assets used in the activity may appreciate
                               - 7 -

in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying on other

similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer’s history of

income or losses with respect to the activity; (7) the amount of

occasional profits, if any, from the activity; (8) the financial

status of the taxpayer; and (9) elements of personal pleasure or

recreation.

     None of these factors is determinative in the evaluation of

profit objective, nor is the number of these factors for or

against the taxpayer necessarily conclusive in that respect.

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

published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981); sec. 1.183-2(b),

Income Tax Regs.   All facts and circumstances with respect to the

activity must be taken into account.   Sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax

Regs.

     1. The Manner in Which the Taxpayer Carries on the Activity

     The fact that the taxpayer carries on the activity in a

businesslike manner may indicate that the activity is engaged in

for profit.   Sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   Three common

inquiries are considered in this context:   (1) Whether the

taxpayer maintained complete and accurate books and records for

the activity; (2) whether the taxpayer conducted the activity in

a manner substantially similar to those of other comparable

activities that were profitable; and (3) whether the taxpayer

changed operating procedures, adopted new techniques, or
                                 - 8 -

abandoned unprofitable methods in a manner consistent with an

intent to improve profitability.     Giles v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2005-28; sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     The first subfactor considers whether Mr. Lowe maintained

complete and accurate books and records of the activity.     Mr.

Lowe retained the receipts from expenses related to the fishing

activity and then transcribed those expenses into a handwritten

ledger organized by expense category.    No similar documents

concerning the income from the activity were introduced into

evidence.    When Mr. Lowe was asked whether he maintained records

of his income, he explained:   “Yes, * * * but it must have been

misplaced in the hurry to get everything and my evidence

together.”

     At trial Mr. Lowe explained that Mrs. Lowe is a professional

bookkeeper and that she assisted Mr. Lowe in his recordkeeping.

However, there is little evidence that the minimal books and

records that were kept, were kept for the purpose of “cutting

expenses, increasing profits, and evaluating the overall

performance of the operation.”    See Golanty v. Commissioner,

supra at 430.   Petitioners stipulated that they “prepared no

records, reports, forecasts, schedules, analyses, or other

documents for” the activity.   Mr. Lowe did not maintain a

separate bank account for the activity, nor is there any mention

in the record of a business plan.    While petitioners kept a
                                - 9 -

written ledger of the expenses of the activity, they did not

“prepare any business or profit plans, profit or loss statements,

balance sheets, or financial break-even analyses” for the

activity.   See Dodge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-89, affd.

without published opinion 188 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1999).      We

conclude this subfactor is neutral.

     As to the second subfactor, Mr. Lowe opined that he carries

on his fishing activity “in the same manner as all the other

professionals in the United States.”    There is no evidence in the

record to corroborate that Mr. Lowe had been successful in other

business activities or that he carried on the fishing activity in

a manner substantially similar to activities of the same nature

that were profitable.    This subfactor favors respondent.

     The third subfactor asks whether petitioners changed

operating procedures, adopted new techniques, or abandoned

unprofitable methods in a manner consistent with an intent to

improve profitability.    Mr. Lowe “Looked back over the years and

seen [sic] that the profit margin is much more better [sic] for

the larger tournaments”; he explained he is “presently only

fishing in tournaments that exceed $25,000, $50,000; $25,000

cash, a $25,000 boat.”    Mr. Lowe also explained that he was

always “acquiring and trying to acquire sponsors and learning” in

order to improve his business’ profitability.    We have previously

found that working to acquire corporate sponsorship may indicate
                              - 10 -

a profit motive.   Sleeper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-367.

Although respondent asserts that Mr. Lowe did not receive money

from any of his sponsors, only discounted tackle, free bait, and

line, the taxpayer in Sleeper was not paid in cash either, but

“allowed to purchase lures at a discount.” Id.   By fishing in

higher paying tournaments, talking to expert fishermen, as

discussed below, and working to acquire sponsors, Mr. Lowe

changed operating procedures in a manner that would bring about a

“material change” in the profitability of his activity.   See

Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 428.   This subfactor favors

petitioners.

     Mr. Lowe viewed himself as a professional bass fisherman

carrying on the activity in a manner similar to other fishing

activities carried on for profit and made changes with an intent

to improve profitability.   His recordkeeping system is less than

desirable, and was apparently not used to analyze the financial

aspects of the business and adequately address profitability.    We

conclude that Mr. Lowe carried on the fishing activity in a

manner that was businesslike in some respects but not others.

This factor is neutral.

     2. The Expertise of the Taxpayer or His Advisers

     “Preparation for the activity by extensive study of its

accepted business, economic, and scientific practices, or

consultation with those who are expert therein, may indicate that
                              - 11 -

the taxpayer has a profit motive where the taxpayer carries on

the activity in accordance with such practices.”   Sec. 1.183-

2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.

     We have no doubt that Mr. Lowe is, and was before

undertaking his competitive fishing activities, an accomplished

bass fisherman.   He has certainly engaged in an extensive study

of the sport, as evidenced by his collection of books, magazines,

newspapers, and videos, as well as by the fact that he studies 2

to 3 hours a night.   None of the titles of the magazines,

newspapers, books, or videos suggest that they are specifically

intended to address the economics or business of profitably

fishing for bass competitively.   Nevertheless, since Mr. Lowe

sought to win tournaments to improve the profitability of this

activity, improving his fishing abilities was tantamount to

improving the profitability of his business.   Mr. Lowe was a

skilled fisherman, winning at least two tournaments in 2005 and

three tournaments in 2006.

     Mr. Lowe also consulted expert professional fishermen to

improve profitability.   He testified that towards the end of 2006

he consulted with Denny Brauer and Kevin VanDam for about 45

minutes with each, discussing what he “should do to proceed a

little bit further into the business to make myself more

profitable.”   Respondent contends that this advice was received

at the end of the last year at issue and therefore it was too
                              - 12 -

late for Mr. Lowe to act on that advice.   However, his seeking

this advice demonstrates that Mr. Lowe intended to continue the

activity while making it profitable and tends to show that he

viewed this activity as more than a hobby.

     Mr. Lowe studied the art of bass fishing; he won tournaments

and sought expert advice.   This factor favors petitioners.

     3. The Time and Effort Expended by the Taxpayer in Carrying
        on the Activity

          The fact that the taxpayer devotes much of his
     personal time and effort to carrying on an activity,
     particularly if the activity does not have substantial
     personal or recreational aspects, may indicate an
     intention to derive a profit. A taxpayer’s withdrawal
     from another occupation to devote much of his energies
     to the activity may also be evidence that the activity
     is engaged in for profit. * * * [Sec. 1.183-2(b)(3),
     Income Tax Regs.]

     Mr. Lowe clearly devotes a substantial amount of time to his

fishing activity, possibly up to 60 hours per week.   He notes

that the fishing activity is his only job and that he has “no

other income.”   Respondent concedes that this factor favors

petitioners.

     4. The Expectation That Assets Used in the Activity May
        Appreciate in Value

     “The term ‘profit’ encompasses appreciation in the value of

assets, such as land, used in the activity.”   Sec. 1.183-2(b)(4),

Income Tax Regs.

     At trial Mr. Lowe admitted that none of his equipment, which

in fact depreciates, or other assets used in the fishing activity
                                - 13 -

will increase in value.    This factor weighs in favor of

respondent.

     5. The Success of the Taxpayer in Carrying on Other Similar
        or Dissimilar Activities

     “The fact that the taxpayer has engaged in similar

activities in the past and converted them from unprofitable to

profitable enterprises may indicate that he is engaged in the

present activity for profit, even though the activity is

presently unprofitable.”    Sec. 1.183-2(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.

     Petitioners did not address this factor at trial, and there

is no evidence that Mr. or Mrs. Lowe carried on any successful

businesses in a manner substantially similar to that of the

fishing activity.    This factor favors respondent.

     6. The Taxpayer’s History of Income or Losses With Respect
        to the Activity

          A series of losses during the initial or start-up
     stage of an activity may not necessarily be an
     indication that the activity is not engaged in for
     profit. However, where losses continue to be sustained
     beyond the period which customarily is necessary to
     bring the operation to profitable status such continued
     losses, if not explainable, as due to customary
     business risks or reverses, may be indicative that the
     activity is not being engaged in for profit. * * *
     [Sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.]

     In the years at issue petitioners claimed $82,502 in losses

from an activity that has never been profitable.      Mr. Lowe argues

that the years at issue were well within the startup stage of the

activity.     Mr. Lowe has been a professional bass fisherman “since

2003”, and petitioners have reported income and expenses related
                               - 14 -

to the fishing activity since 2003.     Therefore, if the activity

began in 2003, it was only in its third and fourth years of

existence during the years at issue.    We have previously

indicated that 5 years was an acceptable startup period for

charter boat fishing activities.   See Busbee v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2000-182; Zwicky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-471.

While competitive freshwater sport fishing is a different

activity, we think a 5-year startup period is not excessive.

     Mr. Lowe explained that “the money comes at the end. You

reap the benefits when everything falls into place.”    He does not

believe “there’s a measuring stick as to how long it takes * * *

five, six, seven, 10 years.”   While we do not agree that the

startup period is as open-ended as he contends, it appears that

his activity was still in the startup stage.    We are concerned

that Mr. Lowe has equivocated from time to time as to how much

longer he will continue his fishing activity before determining

whether to sell or abandon it.   He ascribed this inconsistency in

his correspondence and statements to respondent to his mental

confusion resulting from his cancer treatment.    At trial Mr. Lowe

observed that his earnings had increased every year until the

effects of the cancer forced him to quit.    This is substantiated

by petitioners’ tax returns and helps to demonstrate that the

activity was still growing during the startup phase.
                                 - 15 -

     Because the fishing activity has never made a profit, but

was still in the startup stage during the years at issue, we find

this factor neutral.

     7. The Amount of Occasional Profits, if Any, From the
        Activity

     “The amount of profits in relation to the amount of losses

incurred, and in relation to the amount of the taxpayer’s

investment and the value of the assets used in the activity, may

provide useful criteria in determining the taxpayer’s intent.”

Sec. 1.183-2(b)(7), Income Tax Regs.       “[A]n opportunity to earn a

substantial ultimate profit in a highly speculative venture is

ordinarily sufficient to indicate that the activity is engaged in

for profit even though losses or only occasional small profits

are actually generated.”   Id.

     The fishing activity has yet to reel in any profits;

however, Mr. Lowe believed that he could make a substantial

amount of money if he won a tournament.       If Mr. Lowe’s primary or

principal objective was to make a profit, it is not necessary for

him to show that his primary objective was reasonable.       See sec.

1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs.     Mr. Lowe believed that it was “time

to reap the harvest” of his prior investment.

     The Court has previously found that the mere aspiration and

qualification to win large cash prizes does not necessarily mean

that the activity was engaged in for profit.       See Peacock v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-122.        The activity must have been
                             - 16 -

engaged in with the objective to make a profit.   Id.    Mr. Lowe

certainly wanted his fishing activity to earn money; however,

even a hobbyist may not want to lose money on his activity.

     We have also previously found that a bass fishing activity

where the winnings were in excess of the tournament entry fees

“offered no basis for concluding that he [the taxpayer] would

ever show a profit from tournament fishing” after also

considering travel costs and the depreciation of the equipment.

Hoy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-575.   Mr. Lowe’s winnings

were never close to covering his entry fees, let alone his travel

costs and the depreciation on his equipment.   We find this factor

favors respondent.

     8. The Financial Status of the Taxpayer

     “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

recreational elements involved.”   Sec. 1.183-2(b)(8), Income Tax

Regs.

     Mrs. Lowe earned substantial income from her job at Fry

Steel Co., and the losses from Mr. Lowe’s fishing activity

resulted in substantial tax benefits.   During the years at issue

Mrs. Lowe earned an average of about $180,000 a year from her

job, and petitioners were able to deduct an average of about
                               - 17 -

$41,000 per year on their joint Federal income tax returns due to

Mr. Lowe’s fishing activity losses.     Mr. Lowe was not employed

before the fishing activity and was able to pursue this activity

because of Mrs. Lowe’s substantial income.     We also note that Mr.

Lowe fished for recreation and pleasure long before commencing

his competitive bass fishing activity.     He clearly enjoyed that

activity and likely would have incurred significant fishing costs

yearly for personal pleasure had he not conducted his claimed

business activity.    We find this factor favors respondent.

     9. Elements of Personal Pleasure or Recreation

     “The presence of personal motives in carrying on of an

activity may indicate that the activity is not engaged in for

profit, especially where there are recreational or personal

elements involved.”    Sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs.

However, “We also note that a business will not be turned into a

hobby merely because the owner finds it pleasurable; suffering

has never been made a prerequisite to deductibility.”     Jackson v.

Commissioner, 59 T.C. 312, 317 (1972).

     Mr. Lowe testified that fishing used to be fun when he was

fishing recreationally, but “Fishing in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,

2009 is not fun.”    Mr. Lowe’s fishing activity contained elements

of personal pleasure and recreation, but we find Mr. Lowe’s

testimony that the activity no longer was pleasurable during the

years at issue credible.    This factor is neutral.
                                - 18 -

     10.   Supplementary Element of Competitive Efforts for Profit

     Additionally we find that Mr. Lowe’s competitive strategy

was not fully consistent with an intent to make a profit.     As we

noted above, none of the factors set out in section 1.183-2(b),

Income Tax Regs., is necessarily determinative in the evaluation

of profit objective, and all facts and circumstances with respect

to the activity must be taken into account.    Golanty v.

Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 426; sec. 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.

     All of the American Bass tournaments in which Mr. Lowe

fished were team tournaments.    Mr. Lowe would enter Mrs. Lowe as

his partner and then fish the tournaments alone.   This practice,

while allowing him to share the activity with his spouse, doubled

Mr. Lowe’s entry fee.   We assume that had he fished with a

fishing partner, the partner would have paid his or her own share

of the entry fee.   By fishing alone, Mr. Lowe also at least

halved and most likely much more than halved his chances of

winning.   Mr. Lowe, against very stiff competition, would have

had to catch more fish, alone, than any of his competitors could

catch with both competitors fishing, in order to win a

tournament.   We do not find this conduct consistent with the

intent to make a profit.    If Mr. Lowe had been truly engaged in

the bass fishing activity for profit, he would have done

everything in his power to increase his chances of winning and

decrease his entry costs.   We do note that under this strategy,
                                - 19 -

had Mr. Lowe won, he would not have had to split the prize.

Unfortunately, when you do not win, that does not matter.      With

such a large handicap we believe winning would have been

extraordinarily difficult and extremely improbable.      We find this

factor favors respondent.

     After considering all of the above factors as applied to the

unique facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Mr.

Lowe’s fishing activity was not engaged in for profit within the

meaning of section 183.   Therefore petitioners are not entitled

to deduct expenses in excess of gross income from the activity.

II. Section 6662(a) Accuracy-Related Penalty

     Subsection (a) of section 6662 imposes an accuracy-related

penalty of 20 percent of any underpayment that is attributable to

causes specified in subsection (b).      Respondent asserts that

because petitioners did not engage in the fishing activity for

profit and were not allowed to deduct expenses exceeding the

gross income from the fishing activity, there was a substantial

understatement of income tax.    Sec. 6662(b)(2).    There is an

exception to the section 6662(a) penalty when a taxpayer can

demonstrate (1) reasonable cause for the underpayment and (2)

that the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to the

underpayment.   Sec. 6664(c)(1).   Regulations promulgated under

section 6664(c) further provide that the determination of
                             - 20 -

reasonable cause and good faith “is made on a case-by-case basis,

taking into account all pertinent facts and circumstances.”   Sec.

1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     Although we have determined that Mr. Lowe’s fishing activity

was not engaged in for profit, under the circumstances of this

close case we find reasonable cause for the tax underpayment and

that petitioners “made a reasonable and good faith error in

applying the law to the facts of this case.”   See Connolly v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-218, affd. without published

opinion 58 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 1995).   Therefore petitioners are

not liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties for

the years at issue.

     The Court has considered all of petitioners’ and

respondent’s contentions, arguments, requests, and statements.

To the extent not discussed herein, we conclude that they are

meritless, moot, or irrelevant.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                   under Rule 155.
