Schumacher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-47: The Hobby Loss Rule in Action
On June 9, 2026, Judge Copeland of the United States Tax Court handed down a decision in Schumacher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-47 — a case involving a Nebraska veterinarian and his wife who spent more than two decades breeding and training quarter horses, reporting consistent losses on their tax returns every single year. The IRS called it a hobby. The Tax Court agreed. But in a development that carries real practical significance for any taxpayer facing a similar dispute, the court also found that the Schumachers could not be held liable for the $33,520 in accuracy-related penalties the IRS had assessed — because they reasonably relied on their professional accountant's advice.
Hobby loss cases under I.R.C. § 183 are among the most litigated issues in the Tax Court. If you run a side business, farm, or agricultural activity that consistently generates losses while you earn substantial income from another source, this opinion is essential reading. Understanding the nine-factor test the court applies — and the defenses available even when you lose on the merits — can mean the difference between a devastating audit outcome and a managed resolution. Our Tax Court practice overview explains how these disputes proceed from notice to petition to trial.
Who Were the Schumachers?
Keith Schumacher has been a licensed veterinarian since 1986, working as a shareholder of Northeast Nebraska Veterinary Services, PC — a demanding practice where he routinely worked more than 60 hours per week. His wife Rhonda worked full-time in education. Together they lived on a 50-acre Nebraska parcel they'd owned since 1994. In 2001, they launched Schumacher Quarter Horses (SQH), a sole proprietorship focused on breeding and showing quarter horses. This was not a casual weekend endeavor — they maintained 10 to 25 horses, farmed 17 acres of alfalfa for feed, and in 2016 invested approximately $230,000 in building an indoor riding arena. Keith completed a formal 12-week Clinton Anderson horse training course in 2019 and spent two to four hours daily with the animals. Rhonda competed in barrel racing.
Their long-time accountant, Robert Cruise — an enrolled agent who had handled their taxes for roughly 20 years — also specifically advised them that SQH satisfied the § 183 requirements for a for-profit business activity.
The Issues Before the Court
The IRS issued Notices of Deficiency for tax years 2017, 2018, and 2019, determining that SQH's horse-breeding losses were not deductible because the activity lacked a genuine profit motive under I.R.C. § 183. The deficiencies totaled $62,266 (2017), $61,466 (2018), and $67,447 (2019). Accuracy-related penalties under I.R.C. § 6662(a) were assessed on top of those amounts — $11,458, $11,697, and $10,365, respectively. Two questions went to trial: (1) did SQH qualify as a for-profit activity; and (2) if not, were the penalties appropriate?
The IRS's Position
The government pointed to one stark, undeniable fact: SQH had never generated a profit in any year since its founding in 2001. In the decade documented in the record, gross income from horse activities ranged from $3,500 to $98,550, while operating expenses ranged from $99,991 to $269,102. Net losses in those years ranged from roughly $51,000 to $210,000. The cumulative losses easily exceeded a million dollars. The IRS also noted that Keith's veterinary income was substantial — more than enough to absorb all horse losses and produce a significant tax benefit — and that the operation lacked written business plans and maintained records only for tax purposes, not as genuine management tools.
The Taxpayers' Arguments
The Schumachers contended they genuinely intended to make SQH profitable and had taken real steps toward that goal: investing in the arena, pursuing formal training, spending significant daily hours on horse care, and selling a stallion to a buyer in Brazil. They also raised a penalty defense: they had specifically relied on Cruise's professional advice that SQH qualified as a for-profit business under § 183, and they had provided him with all relevant financial information.
How the Court Ruled: The § 183 Nine-Factor Test
Section 183 does not require that a business actually profit — it requires an actual and honest objective to do so. Courts apply the nine-factor test under Treasury Regulation § 1.183-2(b). No single factor is decisive, and the factors weighed out as follows:
- Businesslike manner (Factor 1) — IRS: No written business plan, records kept only for tax purposes, commingled accounts. A fatal absence of genuine business infrastructure.
- Expertise (Factor 2) — Schumachers: Keith's veterinary training is directly relevant to horse breeding, and both spouses pursued ongoing equine education.
- Time and effort (Factor 3) — Schumachers: Despite demanding full-time jobs, both invested substantial daily time in the operation.
- Appreciation expectation (Factor 4) — IRS: No evidence presented of expected herd appreciation or land value increases.
- Loss history (Factor 6) — IRS: Continuous, unbroken losses since 2001 — not the early deficits of a startup, but a two-decade pattern.
- Occasional profits (Factor 7) — IRS: SQH had never been profitable in any year. Never.
- Financial status (Factor 8) — IRS: Substantial veterinary income meant the losses provided meaningful tax shelter, a hallmark of hobby-loss arrangements.
- Personal pleasure (Factor 9) — IRS: Both Schumachers plainly enjoyed horses as a personal matter — competitive barrel racing, daily care routines, family involvement.
Final tally: six factors for the IRS, two for the Schumachers, one neutral. The court held that SQH was not operated with a genuine profit motive, and disallowed the horse-activity loss deductions under § 183. The court also noted that the § 183(d) presumption — which creates a rebuttable presumption of profit motive if you show a profit in two or more of seven consecutive years in horse activities — was unavailable because SQH had never been profitable.
Why the Penalties Were Denied: The Reasonable Cause Defense
Here is the part of the opinion with the most practical value for taxpayers. Even though the IRS won on § 183, the Tax Court denied all accuracy-related penalties under the reasonable cause and good faith exception of I.R.C. § 6664(c)(1).
The court found that the Schumachers:
- Had limited independent knowledge of the hobby loss rules (veterinarian and educator, not tax professionals);
- Retained a competent enrolled agent who specifically addressed § 183 compliance;
- Provided Cruise with accurate, complete information about SQH's operations; and
- Genuinely relied on his professional conclusion that the activity qualified as a for-profit business.
That four-part showing — competent advisor, full disclosure, honest reliance, reasonable cause — satisfied the standard set out in Neonatology Associates v. Commissioner. The $33,520 in penalties was eliminated entirely. The lesson is clear: penalty exposure and tax liability exposure are separate analyses. Even a taxpayer who loses the underlying deficiency fight can still prevail on penalty abatement by demonstrating reasonable reliance on a qualified professional.
What This Means for You
If Your Side Business Has Never Made Money
The Schumacher loss history — $1.4 million in cumulative losses over a decade, never a profitable year — is an extreme example, but the IRS watches for any pattern of consistent losses alongside substantial outside income. If your Schedule C, F, or E activity has generated losses in most or all years since inception, a hobby loss audit is a real risk. Preparation matters: a written business plan, separate business accounts, and records maintained for genuine management purposes (not just tax filing) all strengthen your position under Factor 1 — the factor the Schumachers lost most decisively.
The § 183(d) Presumption Is Your Friend — If You Can Use It
For horse-related activities, a profit in two of seven consecutive years creates a presumption of profit motive. For other activities, the test is three of five years. If you are close to satisfying this safe harbor, the effort to push into profitability for one or two years can dramatically change your audit exposure.
Professional Reliance Must Be Genuine and Documented
The Schumachers saved over $33,000 in penalties because they had a real, documented reliance on their accountant's specific § 183 advice. This works only if you actually provided the professional with complete information and actually relied on the advice. Retroactively creating records or claiming reliance you can't substantiate will not succeed. If you're claiming deductions on a loss activity, get the professional opinion before you file — and document it.
A Notice of Deficiency Has a Hard Deadline
If the IRS has issued a Notice of Deficiency disallowing your business losses, you have only 90 days to file a petition with the Tax Court. This is a jurisdictional deadline — it cannot be extended. Missing it means you lose the right to challenge the deficiency in Tax Court without first paying the full amount. If you are also dealing with IRS collection threats, see our page on the IRS levy appeal process for your options.
Get a Consultation Before the Clock Runs Out
Schumacher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-47 illustrates both the gravity of a hobby loss challenge and the real defenses available to taxpayers who handle the dispute correctly. Whether you are facing an IRS examination of your farm or side business, have already received a Notice of Deficiency, or want to proactively assess your § 183 risk before the IRS does — Brightside Tax Relief is ready to help.
⚠️ If you received a Notice of Deficiency, you have only 90 days to petition the Tax Court — contact Brightside Tax Relief for a consultation before that deadline expires. Call 914-214-9127 or visit brightsidetaxrelief.com/tax-court to speak with our team today.
Need Tax Help?
Our licensed attorneys are ready to help you resolve your IRS tax issues — free consultation, no obligation.