The taxpayer was an architect that used a bonus that he received from his architectural firm in 1975 to buy 420 acres of farmland and an old run-down farmhouse. The taxpayer continued to live in town until 2010. From time-to-time, he farmed the tillable ground and rented the pasture ground to neighboring farmers for cash rent. For the tax years at issue, the taxpayer reported substantial losses as a result of deducting expenses related to the farmhouse in addition to expenses related to the farm ground. The IRS denied the deductions related to the farmhouse. The farmhouse had never been rented out for cash and family members occasionally lived in the house over the years in exchange for improvements made to the house. The Tax Court, ruling for the IRS held that the farmhouse-related deductions were not allowed either under I.R.C. Sec. 212 or Sec. 162 because the taxpayer failed to present evidence that he incurred claimed expenses and because the taxpayer failed to establish the existence of a real estate rental business. In addition, the Tax Court determined that the taxpayer had failed to establish that the farmhouse was held for the production of income. On appeal, the court affirmed. The appellate court noted that the taxpayer had not established a profit motive for any alleged farmhouse rental business and did not establish that he ever treated the farmhouse as part of the farm ground (which did involve a business activity). The appellate court also held that the farmhouse was not property held for the production of income. Meinhardt v. Comr., No. 13-2924, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17455 (8th Cir. Sept. 10, 2014), aff'g., T.C. Memo. 2013-85