Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Selling Soap as a Hobby - Amway IBO's in Tax Court

See full size imageRoger S. Campbell, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2011-42

The Amway distributorship system is well known to respondent and this Court
Friscia Construction, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2000-192

I included the Campbell case in one of my group posts.  It concerned someone whose Amway activities were considered a hobby by the Tax Court denying them deductions for losses.  That portion of the post was picked up by someone who calls himself Joecool and posted on his blog under the title "Do IBO's have a clue about business?".  I found that there are quite a few blogs dedicated to pointing out the downside of the Amway experience including Married To An Ambot by Anna Banana :

My story of what its like to be married to an Amway cult follower. I expose the lies that our upline told and what happens at Amway meetings and functions. I leave the explanations of why Amway is a poor business opportunity or the tool scam to other bloggers. This blog mainly exists to curse out my former upline, aka the cult leaders, and to let everyone know what kind of idiots I had to put up with. Feel free to join in or live vicariously.

Come on Anna, stop holding back. Tell us how you really feel.

 So I got motivated to look at what was in the database I prowl for my little tax jewels had on Amway.  As the above quote from Friscia Construction indicates, there is quite a bit.  "The Court" is the Tax Court.  "Respondent" is the IRS (In all Tax Court cases the taxpayer is "The Petitioner" and IRS is "The Respondent").  Friscia Construction is unusual among the cases I found.  It is about the IRS challenging  the deductions of a profitable Amway distributor.

Although originally focused on soap, Amway sells a variety of household products through its multi-level marketing system.  In case you have never been invited to an Amway presentation or, more likely, didn't go when you were invited, the emphasis is not so much on the products or even selling the products.  It's about getting other people to sell the product, who in turn get other people and so on with you sitting at the top of your pyramid (only they make it real clear its not a pyramid). 

Bloggers like Joecool and Anna Banana claim that there are very few people who make money at it.  Those that do probably don't make as much as they claim, since those in the "upline" need to paint a glowing picture to motivate the "downline" IBO's (Independent Business Owners).  Further, the bloggers claim that most of the soap and other stuff is actually bought by the IBO's themselves.  Finally, the "upline Diamonds" make most of their money from selling "tools" (i.e. motivational tapes and the like) to the downline.

The other attraction of Amway to some people is that it might allow them to deduct as business expenses things like cars, part of their home or entertainment that they would have spent anyway.  That's probably the aspect of Amway that the IRS finds most interesting.  Joecool did a post on how some IBO's think of their income tax refunds (generated by Amway losses sheltering other income) as profit.

To me the most interesting thing that I found in my search is this excerpt from the Internal Revenue Manual for examiners who are doing information requests:

. — Amway Corporation
[Last Revised: 12-10-2007]
(1) Amway Corporation has waived the hand delivery requirements of 26 USC §7603 and will accept summonses by personal service, mail, or overnight service at Amway Corporation, 7575 E. Fulton, Ada, MI 49355, Attn.: Director, Legal Division. Direct distributors who further qualify for profit sharing bonuses receive the non-cash part of that bonus through a mutual fund account administered by Amway Mutual Fund, Inc., 7575 E. Fulton, Ada, MI 49355, which requires a separate summons

Now I am subject to the AICPA Statements of Standards on Tax Practice, which among other things forbids me from giving clients advice based on what I believe the audit selection process of a taxing authority is.  I wouldn't do it anyway, because I think most people who give that type of advice are guessing.  Even if you happen to be one of my clients, I'm speaking to you purely as a reader here when I give you this advice:

                                                You don't tug on Superman's cape
                                                You don't spit into the wind
                                                You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger

And you don't take no Schedule C losses from an arrangement with a company that IRS examiners have on speed-dial.

I found 23 cases of IBO's who fought the IRS in Court.  (A couple appealed, but I only counted them once)They pretty much all lost.  In these type of cases there are really three ways you are denied deductions.  The first is substantiation.  You didn't prove it.  Next is that the expenses are not really ordinary and necessary expenses of the business.  When you are talking about cars and business use of the home, those two issues can get blurred together.  The third is that there really isn't any business there.  Taxpayers fight the IRS and win on that issue frequently even a Vietnamese couple whose "business" was playing slot machines using the principles of Feng Shui.  Amway IBO's who take on the IRS on the Section 183 "hobby loss" issue almost always lose.

One of the most common themes is that IBO's seek advice generally only from their "uplines", who of course are not disinterested.  They also do not seem to put any energy into trying to control their expenses.  I'm going to give you a little snippet from each of the cases and comment a bit on some of them.

LOPEZ v. COMM., Cite as 94 AFTR 2d 2004-7075 
Jorge N. Lopez, et ux. v. Commissioner , TC Memo 2003-142

Tax Court properly determined that engineer and wife weren't entitled to business deduction for expenses incurred in connection with their Amway products distribution activity because they didn't engage in activity for profit: although taxpayers showed proof of profit motive, such wasn't sufficient to override govt.'s evidence that included their failure to keep businesslike records, their failure to alter unprofitable methods, their non-dependence on activity income, and their use of activity to socialize with friends and family.
In their own Amway activities, which began in 1996, the Lopezes sold products at cost to both their downline distributors and their customers, which practice eliminated retail sales as a source of gross income. They chose instead to focus their efforts on developing a network of downline distributors to generate performance bonuses.  Relying on Amway brochures, the Lopezes concluded that they would need to achieve and maintain a monthly point value of 4,000 for their Amway activities to be profitable. In 1998 and 1999, the Lopezes' point value did not exceed 372 points in any month.

The only advice they sought for their Amway activities was from upline distributors, and when they received unsolicited advice from their accountant, they disregarded it. During the years in question, Mr. Lopez was employed full-time as a petroleum engineer, and Mrs. Lopez was a homemaker.

The tax court ultimately was not persuaded that the Lopezes' primary motive for conducting their Amway activities was for income or profit. It found that the conduct of their Amway activity “virtually precluded any possibility of realizing a profit.” The Lopezes' lack of a business plan for recouping losses and achieving profitable levels of activity indicated the absence of a profit motive. In the face of four consecutive years of losses, the Lopezes still did not change their approach to increase the likelihood of earning a profit. The tax court further found that the Lopezes did not conduct market research to help them assess the potential profitability of their activities. It also noted that, although the Lopezes had no prior business experience, they accepted the advice of upline distributors rather than seeking advice from unbiased, independent business sources.

Since the Mr and Mrs Lopez appealed, they got to lose twice.

OGDEN v. COMM., Cite as 87 AFTR 2d 2001-1299
Michael A. Ogden, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1999-397
 Contrary to the Ogdens' contention, evidence of profit is not determinative of whether a profit motive exists. See id. at 876 (no single tax regulation factor, nor the existence of a majority of factors, is determinative of whether a profit motive exists). There is overwhelming evidence in the record that, if believed, supports a conclusion that the Ogdens maintained their Amway activity for deductions, personal pleasure and to offset wages. The tax court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.

Amway does not have a quota for sales, its products do not have to be sold above cost, and its distributors are not required to sponsor downline distributors. An Amway brochure, The Amway Business Review, states that the potential for earning income increases as the number of distributors in a sponsor's group grows and as sales increase. Distributors devote as little or as much of their time to Amway activities as they desire. The eight page Amway Business Review in large blocks on four of its pages highlights the fact that “The Average Monthly Gross Income for “Active” Distributors was $88.”

We believe 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.


Deductions denied for business expenses and depreciation connected with Amway distributorship. Activities were conducted in unbusinesslike manner, taxpayers maintained full-time jobs, and little distinction was made between Amway activities and personal social activities. Also, IRS properly imposed penalties for failure to timely file and negligent or intentional disregard of rules.

A further indication of the unbusinesslike fashion in which petitioners conducted their Amway activity was the thin line dividing business activities from personal and [pg. 973]recreational activities. Petitioners offered scant evidence that their Amway activity required them to do anything other than to maintain an active social life. Although they occasionally attended seminars, most of their activity involved giving parties and taking people out to restaurants. While there is no requirement that profit-oriented work be onerous and unpleasant, the evidence presented by petitioners does not indicate activity motivated by a profit objective. On the contrary, the evidence shows that petitioners made some small modifications in their routine social life, kept cursory notes about their activities, and claimed deductions for the cost of nearly everything they owned or did. On this record, we find as a fact that petitioners' activities were motivated by a desire to avoid tax rather than a desire to generate income.

Roger S. Campbell, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2011-42

Activities not for profit—profit objective—distributorship and direct marketing activities. Code Sec. 183 deduction limits applied to expenses pro se married real estate and construction business operators claimed in connection with Amway distributorship activity that they engaged in without requisite profit objective. Lack of profit objective was shown by facts that taxpayers commingled expenses, had no idea if they were making profit for any given year until they filed that year's return, didn't keep complete records, and otherwise didn't conduct activity in businesslike manner. It was also telling that taxpayers didn't have experience in this type of activity, didn't seek out independent advice, used activity losses to offset their real estate and construction business income, and stated that they would continue with activity regardless of whether it ever turned profit. Countervailing facts that they spent significant time on activity and increased gross receipts during years at issue weren't dispositive considering overall record.

Kenneth J. Nissley, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2000-178

Activities not for profit—Amway distributorship. Husband and wife/CPAs didn't engage in Amway distributorship activity for profit: taxpayers incurred substantial losses for 8 consecutive years; and didn't conduct activity in business-like manner where they kept separate bank account and records to “guarantee” deductions

Kenneth C. Theisen, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1997-539

 Full-time IRS agent and travel agent-wife didn't operate Amway distributorship for profit, so weren't entitled to deductions from activity: taxpayers didn't conduct activity in business-like manner where they didn't have business plan, perform break-even analysis or have budget; admitted that benefits included ability to buy discounted products for personal use; testified that distributorship was for financial gain and personal purchases were more than purchases acquired for resale; reported losses for 5 consecutive years; couldn't explain how or when distributorship would become profitable or why auto and telephone expenses increased without corresponding revenue increase; kept income and expense ledger for substantiation purposes only; and intentionally excluded cost of motivational tapes from costs of goods sold to avoid disclosing negative gross income on returns

Generally, no. The way the plan is written is, you're taught to purchase things from yourself for yourself, and you get other people — say, Look. Just change your buying habits. Don't go to HEB. Don't go to Eckerd's. Don't go to Sam's. You get access to all these products. Change your buying habits. Buy things for yourself

Petitioner also conceded that petitioners' personal purchases were more than the purchases they acquired for resale to other customers or downline distributors. Specifically, petitioner admitted that in 1992 he bought $4,500 of products for personal use and $3,262 of products for other purposes. For 1993, he conceded he bought $10,729 of products for personal use and $4,991 of products for other purposes.

Bryan J. Brennan, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1997-60

1. Litigation costs—substantial justification for IRS position—distributorship conducted for profit. Taxpayers were denied litigation costs with respect to underlying case challenging IRS's disallowance of their business deductions: IRS was substantially justified in its position that taxpayer didn't conduct household product distributorship with requisite profit objective under Code Sec. 183 . Taxpayers had losses for 7 consecutive years, yet earned substantial income from other sources for 2 of those years, and didn't provide IRS with business plan or profit projection; and similar distributorship-related activities had been found to contain elements of personal pleasure. Also, IRS's concession of the issue within 5 months of filing answer and 2 months of receiving additional information was reasonable.

This is a case of the taxpayer actually settling favorably with the IRS.  They were, however, not able to recoup attorneys fees.

William B. Hart, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1995-55

Taxpayers weren't entitled to deduct business loss related to Amway distributorship: taxpayers didn't engage in activity for profit. Expenses of distributorship activity related mainly to social functions: taxpayers attended seminars in Colorado and California, and monthly dinners with their “network”; taxpayer-husband took guest who was interested in finding out more about distributorship on fishing trip; and “supplies” expense included groceries bought while taxpayers were away delivering products or visiting clients. Court rejected argument that activity was conducted in businesslike manner because taxpayers kept records, sought expert counseling, and devoted time and effort to distributorship: they didn't utilize records in way to help them make profit; they didn't seek advice on how to cut back on expenses; many of expenses claimed had significant elements of personal pleasure; and due to distributorship's low receipts it appeared that taxpayers used their time spending money on entertainment rather than focusing on earning profit.

Negligence penalty was upheld: despite Tax Court's warning in prior case that taxpayers couldn't translate their Amway business into deduction for personal aspects of their lives, taxpayers again attempted to deduct clearly personal expenses in guise of distributorship activity, which they had failed to show was being operated for profit. But taxpayers weren't liable for penalty for filing late return: recent death of taxpayers' son was reasonable cause for delay in filing return; and there was no willful neglect.

Petitioners do not appear to have heeded our warning, and respondent was not as charitable this time. Again petitioners have attempted to deduct clearly personal expenses in the guise of an Amway activity that they failed to show was being operated for a profit. We sustain respondent on this issue.

Thomas P. Poast, TC Memo 1994-399

IRS proved that taxpayers, full-time automobile workers, lacked requisite profit objective in carrying on their Amway distributorship activity. Taxpayers failed to conduct activity in businesslike manner: taxpayers maintained incomplete sales records, used solely to help to substantiate claimed deductions; they failed to isolate business expenses from personal expenses; and taxpayers kept no realistic and reasonable budget despite incurring substantial net losses in all prior years. Further, taxpayers' claim that they sought expert counseling regarding business techniques was rejected: taxpayers abandoned "ineffective" techniques without performing cost/benefit analysis of techniques; and techniques received from "upliners" (who had financial stake in taxpayers' sales) were never seriously utilized. Also, much of the time taxpayers spent on Amway activity involved substantial pleasurable personal aspects.

Shortly before becoming involved with their Amway activity, petitioners attended a seminar conducted by an insurance agent, Donald Fletcher, who conducted similar seminars nationwide. Fletcher promoted his life insurance product, while suggesting to the participants of the seminars that the premiums be funded by tax savings generated by deducting largely personal expenses through a home based business like Amway.  Fletcher offered to prepare participants' tax returns and provide representation in audits for a cost of $125.

We find not only that the techniques were not seriously utilized, but also that, for the most part, petitioners' advisers were not experts as much as they were upliners with a financial stake in petitioners' retail and downline sales. Neither petitioners nor their advisers appeared to be even vaguely interested in the importance of cutting back their expenses.

Gerald Eugene Swaffar, TC Memo 1992-180

IRS failed to prove that taxpayer's Amway activities weren't carried on for profit. Deductions for expenses related to Amway activities were allowed only to extent conceded by IRS: taxpayers failed to substantiate expenses in excess of that amount. Penalties for negligence and substantial understatement were imposed

At trial, respondent contended for the first time that petitioner's Amway activities were not engaged in with the requisite profit objective under section 183. Such new matter requires that the burden of proof be placed on respondent. See Rule 142(a). Respondent further contends that, assuming the Amway activity was entered into with a bona fide profit objective, petitioner has failed to establish that the above expenditures were incurred and were ordinary and necessary in carrying on a trade or business, pursuant to section 1.

An analysis of petitioner's Amway activities requires this Court to conclude, without analyzing in depth all nine factors, that respondent has not carried her burden of showing that petitioner did not engage in the Amway activity with an actual and honest objective to make a profit. We emphasize that we do not affirmatively conclude that petitioners had a profit objective, but only that respondent has failed to prove that petitioners lacked such an objective.

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.  If in its deficiency notice the IRS asserts that you didn't have a profit motive, it is up to you to prove that you did.  In this case, the IRS raised the issue later, which shifted the burden of proof.  The IRS couldn't prove that they didn't have a profit motive. 

Gerald W. Jordan, TC Memo 1991-50

Amway distributor was allowed to deduct expenses for travel, incentive prizes, and seminars: expenses were ordinary and necessary. Deductions were allowed in part for meal and car expenses, and were denied for gift expenses, because taxpayer didn't fully substantiate claims.

Another win for an IBO.  Hooray.  Too bad they didn't do a better job on substantiation.

Joseph M. Ransom, TC Memo 1990-381

Taxpayer wasn't engaged in Amway distribution activity with profit objective. Factors tending to indicate lack of profit motive were: absence of separate checking account; failure to cut costs or recruit new distributors; and substantial income from other sources (with attempted Amway deductions that would have almost eliminated tax he would otherwise owe on that income).

Peter S. Rubin, TC Memo 1989-290

Deductions attributable to Amway distributorship activities were disallowed to extent they exceeded gross income from those activities, which weren't engaged in for profit: taxpayers kept records in cursory and sloppy manner, and they engaged in distributorship activities to claim tax deductions for personal expenditures and to purchase Amway products at sizeable discounts for their own use.

Dewitt Talmadge Ferrell, Jr., TC Memo 1987-102

Losses claimed by airline pilot and housewife were limited where their business activities, involving selling of Amway products, sundials, and posters, weren't engaged in with profit objective, but rather were conducted primarily to generate tax deductions and credits for personal expenses. Revenues were of secondary importance to taxpayers who had no sales expertise and made no effort to obtain any, didn't maintain reliable records, and devoted little effort to sales. Burden of proof was on taxpayers since they didn't show that business ever reported profit before years in issue; Sec. 183(d) presumption didn't apply.

J.H. Schroeder, TC Memo 1986-583

As to the Amway distributorship fee, petitioner failed to show that he conducted his Amway affairs in connection with a trade or business or an activity engaged in for profit. Petitioner made no sales of Amway products and had no income from his Amway operations during 1981. He failed to possess the requisite profit objective, since he admittedly became a distributor solely for the purpose of being able to purchase items at discount prices by virtue of his status as a "dealer". See section 183.

Harry Mitchell Goldstein, TC Memo 1986-339

Taxpayers' Amway activities weren't trade or business and weren't engaged in for profit but were undertaken primarily to obtain tax deductions and credits; business expenses, investment credit, and child care credit denied. Taxpayers' (husband and wife) activities weren't carried on in businesslike manner, they both had full-time jobs, and they had very little success in obtaining other distributors or selling products. Taxpayers had become Amway distributors and claimed losses based on business deductions and credits.

Q. How many sales did you make in 1980?
A. Sales—1980—Probably not even $5 worth, because we did not get any new people coming in, you see. We just mostly went in for ourselves and then get the other people coming in with us.
Q. So it is your testimony that your total income from Amway in 1979 and 1980 was less than $5?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you still in the Amway business?
A. Yes. We like the products and you can't get them any other way.

John Alcala, TC Memo 1984-664

On this record, there arises the strong suspicion that petitioners became Amway distributors primarily for the purpose of providing themselves with Amway merchandise which they could not otherwise obtain, while, at the same time, providing themselves with considerable tax deductions. Compare Barcus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1973-138 We make no such finding herein, but we do hold that petitioners have failed to carry their necessary burden of proof to establish that they entered into a bona fide business enterprise with the intention and objective of making a profit. McCormick v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1969-261

Randall B. Ollett, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2004-103

In addition to the travel-related expenses, petitioners also had expenses of $3,571 in 1999 and $710 in 2000 for professional books and other materials that were part of Amway's “training program”. These books were recommended by petitioners' upline network and may be described as general self-motivation books. Petitioners also purchased various audio tapes that included stories told by other Amway distributors of how they built successful networks.

As noted above, petitioners' revenue from the Amway activity for the years in issue was minimal, and even that amount was attributable in part to petitioners' purchases of household goods for their own personal use. When asked about how they intended to turn their losses into profits, Mr. Ollett responded: “The only way I can solve it is to talk to more people. And there, in essence, is the challenge that I have, which is finding those people”.

Petitioners did not have any sales experience prior to becoming Amway distributors. Petitioners relied exclusively on their upline distributors, who stood to benefit from petitioners' participation, for advice and training. They did not seek independent business advice at the beginning of their Amway activity to assess their potential for success, and they did not seek independent business advice for turning around years of operating losses. Petitioners' failure to seek independent business advice strongly suggests that petitioners did not carry on the Amway distributorship in a businesslike manner.

Joe Guadagno, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2003-88

Included with petitioners' timely filed return for each year is a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business. Each return was prepared by a certified public account who also was an Amway distributor. Petitioners' Schedules C for 1996 and 1997 list their principal business as “Amway”. For 1998, petitioners' Schedule C lists their principal business as “DistConsumerProduct”. Petitioners reported net losses of $26,264, $24,047, and $19,810 on their Schedules C for 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively.

Before becoming Amway distributors, petitioners had neither experience with Amway nor experience in running a business. Nevertheless, they did not seek independent business advice at the outset, and they did not seek independent business advice afterwards even though losses were sustained year after year. Instead, they relied upon other Amway distributors whose advice is more accurately characterized as personal motivational advice than strategic business advice.

Larry Minnick, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2002-147

As previously stated, more weight must be given to objective facts indicating a profit objective than to petitioners' statement of intent. Dreicer v. Commissioner, supra. After considering the objective factors detailed above, we find especially relevant the manner in which petitioners carried on the Amway activity and petitioners' history of losses and lack of profits. We find from these and the other objective facts in the record that petitioners did not have an actual and honest intent to profit from the Amway activity in 1996 and 1997.

Broadrick R. Moore, et al. v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2001-173

Considering the record in its entirety, we are satisfied that petitioners did not have the actual, honest, and bona fide objective of making a profit. It appears that they became Amway distributors simply to deduct expenses for items of a personal nature

Karl Meyer, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2001-157

The Amway “pyramid” incentive system is promoted by Amway in the form of the “9-4-2 plan”.  Under the “9-4-2 plan”, each Amway distributor is encouraged to personally recruit 9 “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 117 “downline” distributors in the initial distributor's organization). The “9-4-2 plan” is promoted as the theoretical break-even point for a distributorship, assuming that (1) the distributor and each “downline” distributor within the distributor's organization purchases $200 of Amway products per month and that (2) 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 117 “downline” distributors in the distributor's network successfully implements the “9-4-2 plan”.

The Amway “9-4-2 plan” does not provide meaningful guidance to distributors regarding how expenses incurred in pursuing an Amway activity may be reduced

Despite their lack of experience with either Amway or an Amway type activity, petitioners never sought meaningful counsel from disinterested third parties. Rather, petitioners relied principally on advice from “upline” distributors and other interested Amway individuals

James R. Landrum, et ux. v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2001-112

Prior to the years in issue, petitioners had three separate experiences with Amway, beginning in 1974. Mr. Landrum was a corporal in the Marine Corps and was stationed in Hawaii in 1974. His Amway activity consisted of purchasing cases of wax from an Amway distributor at wholesale, selling “a case or two a month to [his] friends,” and keeping the difference between the wholesale and retail prices. He ceased his activities with Amway in 1976 when he was transferred from Hawaii and then released from active duty with the Marine Corps. After their marriage in 1977, petitioners participated in an Amway distributorship. Their experience with Amway was unprofitable, and they terminated it after 2 years. Petitioners became involved with Amway a third time in 1985, while Mr. Landrum was employed at Goodyear. Although petitioners had about 50 persons reporting to them, directly or indirectly, in the pyramid structure of Amway, there were insufficient sales for profit. Petitioners' third Amway venture lasted approximately 2 years, and again, petitioners terminated the activity for lack of profit. In late 1995, petitioners were introduced to Amway a fourth time by friends of Mrs. Landrum. This fourth Amway experience is the subject of the present controversy.

Mr. Landrum estimated that the person who established a successful 6-4-2 grouping would receive $1,800 to $2,200 in monthly commissions and then might proceed to gain even greater benefits as a “direct distributor” who might then triple his organization and receive an “Emerald bonus” and then expand to have six legs and a “Diamond organization”. According to Mr. Landrum, Amway distributors with an emerald organization make $75,000 to $100,000 annually, and those with a diamond organization make $125,000 to $250,000 yearly, “And it goes up from there” as he put it.


23 cases on the same issue is a goodly number, but of course they are over a long period of time.  It's clearly not a random sample.  If you are say the 20th case like this either you didn't do your homework or you are really stubborn.  The other thing that biases this is that the IRS picks the worst cases to contest.  Before you get a "90 day letter", which is what allows you to go to Tax Court, you can have an independent appeal in the IRS.  Once you file to go to Tax Court, the case will get kicked back to appeals to see if they can settle. At that point appeals can consider "hazards of litigation". So there are probably many people who got decent settlements from the IRS. Of course there are also many who just wrote a check to close out the audit.  All in all, though, if the reason you want to start a business is so that you can deduct money you spend anyway (Something I advise you not to do), Amway is probably one of the worst things that you could pick.  It's worse than horse breeding, which the IRS seems to have a particular antipathy for, but the Tax Court often allows.

Interestingly, I did not find any cases of people who were using other types of tax shelters to shelter their Amway income.  Also, if the Amway dream is really true, you would think I would find a case like that of Peter Morton, who was being challenged on deducting his jet expenses, only with the taxpayer being a Quintuple Diamond Super Duper Amway guy.  At the Amway meeting I went to they said that they were glad not everybody took advantage of the Amway opportunity, since they needed pilots for their planes and the like.

All in all, I would say that while not determinative, the record in the tax court is supportive of Joecool and Anna Bannana.  At least, there are some more stories for them.


  1. There is no doubt the top 1% make MUCH more from the Amway Tool Scam than their Amway business. This was proven by the Wisconsin AG, the recent UK lawsuit, numerous other lawsuits, and direct statements made by these scammers.

    In fact, this paragraph contradicts itself:

    "Bloggers like Joecool and Anna Banana claim that there are very few people who make money at it. Those that do probably don't make as much as they claim, since those in the "upline" need to paint a glowing picture to motivate the "downline" IBO's (Independent Business Owners). Further, the bloggers claim that most of the soap and other stuff is actually bought by the IBO's themselves. Finally, the "upline Diamonds" make most of their money from selling "tools" (i.e. motivational tapes and the like) to the downline."

    Either the money is there or it isn't. The point is there are 2 businesses, the Amway business and the Amway Tool Scam business. To learn more, visit this resource, which is the very best information available anywhere:

  2. I think the claim that I may not have expressed too clearly is that some diamonds who might be making good money exagerate their earnings.

    I'm remaining agnostic on the Amway religion and just reporting what I see in the body of tax authority that I spend my time studying.

  3. Some diamonds may indeed be doing this. However, many of them make the money they project, but it's coming from the tools, not Amway. Also, many diamonds achieved that level at one time, and have fallen backwards. However, the tool profit allows them to project an income above even the level they fell back from, all with Amway's approval of "once a diamond, always a diamond" thinking, which makes the business VERY misleading to most prospects/IBOs:

  4. Peter,

    Tex, JoeCool, and Anna Bannana are as zealous about their "causes" against Amway as some Amway distributors are about Amway, so take everything they say with an extremely large dose of salt. For example, it's false that the majority of "Diamonds" make the majority of their income from sales of business support materials. Amway also published various income statistics, including the average bonuses paid out to Diamonds. The latest figures are here.

    Also it's (a) against Amway's rules to promote any potential tax benefits and (b) The Amway distributors association (IBOAI) publishes a deal of tax information for Amway IBOs, including a free book and links to the direct sellers audit guidelines published by the IRS. Here's the link -

    IBOAI - Tax information

    Alas just because you have rules and advice doesn't mean people follow it, and the IRS quite rightly throws the book at them. Given there's several hundred thousand Amway IBOs in the US, and hundreds of thousands of more who have given it a try at least for a little while over the years, 23 cases of a period of many years is extremely few.

  5. ibofb,

    You're WRONG.

    I have numerous points of reference about the tool profit level, all you have is a denial statement.

    Amway's dollar figures are for AMWAY ONLY, and claim they don't know how much money is made from the tools:

    Which Amway rule prohibits ANY potential tax benefits? Based on the number of IBOAI blog comments, very few IBOs even visit the IBOAI site. The IBOAI does little to follow up on that free book and links to ensure more IBOs are operating at a net profit, because the people on the IBOAI are the same ones scamming their downline with the Amway Tool Scam.

    At Peter's request, I'll be posting about the "rules and advice" the upline provides soon. Just because 23 were indentified doesn't mean there are only 23 total cases, and many more settled before the cases went to court.

    Nice try spinning, ibofb/David/insider! LOL

  6. David Steadson aka Icerat aka Insider aka IBOfightback is the internet's most prolific Amway defender, known to go to any lengths to defend Amway so his words might need to be taken with a grain of salt.

    wana start a part time business contact me at

    wana start a part time business contact me at

  9. Hello to all, sinсe I аm really eager of
    reаding this ωеbsitе's post to be updated on a regular basis. It consists of fastidious material.Hunted Season 1 Episode 8
    My site > Hunted Season 1 Episode 8

  10. Suрerb, what a wеblog іt is! This weblog pгоvides vаluable faсtѕ
    to us, keep it up.http://tοmsrіver.еnts/merlin-ѕеaѕon-5-episode-9-with-аll-my-hеart-watch-it-for-freе-online-ѕtгeam-9ee72bf4
    Also visit my weblog ; Watch Merlin Season 5 Episode 9 With All My Heart Online Free Stream

  11. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this info for my mission.
    My website: loans for bad credit

  12. Keep on ωritіng, grеat job!
    Feel free to surf my web blog 1 month loan

  13. Itѕ lіke you reаd my mіnd! Yоu appeaг tο κnow sο much about
    this, like you wrоte the boоk in it or somеthing.
    I thinκ thаt you can do with a few pics to ԁrive the
    message home a bit, but othег than that, this iѕ great blog.
    A fantastiс reaԁ. Ӏ ωill certainly bе back.

    Hеre is mу page: New Bingo Sites
    my webpage :: New Bingo Sites

  14. Ӏt's appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I'ѵe reаd thіs
    post and if I could I dеsirе to ѕuggest you
    some intereѕting thingѕ or suggeѕtions.
    Maybe уou could write next articles rеfeгrіng
    to thіs article. I desire to rеad еvеn more things аbout it!

    Feel frеe to surf to my blοg poѕt ..
    . quick cash loans
    Also see my web page :: quick cash loans

  15. Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will
    add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.

    Check out my blog post ...

  16. Way cool! Some extremеlу valіԁ pоints!
    I appreciate you penning this post and the reѕt of the
    website is verу good.

    Аlso viѕit mу web-ѕite;
    personal loans

  17. What’s up friends, you are sharing your opinion
    regarding web site Search engine optimization, I am also new user of web,
    therefore I am also getting more from it. Thanks to everything.

    My web blog -

  18. Hi, just required you to know I he added your site to
    my Google bookmarks due to your layout. But seriously, I believe
    your internet site has 1 in the freshest theme I?
    ?ve came across. It extremely helps make reading your blog significantly easier.

    My blog post;

  19. І think thаt what you publishеd was
    actually νеry reasonаble. But, what abοut this?
    suppoѕe you addеd a lіttlе informаtion?
    I am not suggeѕting yоur informatіon isn't solid., but what if you added a post title that grabbed folk's attention?
    I mean "Selling Soap as a Hobby - Amway IBO's in Tax Court" іs а little borіng.
    You ought to glancе аt Үahoo's home page and watch how they create news titles to get people interested. You might add a video or a picture or two to grab people interested about what you'vе
    writtеn. Just my opinіоn, it might maκе
    your blοg a lіttle bit more intеresting.
    visit the following internet page

  20. І think that what you publishеd was actually vеry гeasonable.

    But, what аbout this? suppose you addeԁ a littlе іnfoгmation?
    I am not suggesting your informatiοn isn't solid., but what if you added a post title that grabbed folk'ѕ attention?
    Ι mean "Selling Soap as a Hobby - Amway IBO's in Tax Court" is a
    little boring. You ought to glance at Yahoo's home page and watch how they create news titles to get people interested. You might add a video or a picture or two to grab people interested about what you've writtеn.
    Just my opіniоn, it might make your blοg a little
    bit moге interesting. visit the following internet page
    my website :: visit the following internet page

  21. Ι read thiѕ artіcle fullу οn the tοpic of the comparison оf lаtest anԁ
    prесеding technologiеs, it's remarkable article.

    Here is my webpage :: payday loans
    My web site > payday loans

  22. Oh my goodnеss! Impгeѕѕiѵе artіcle duԁe!
    Thanκ уou, Howevеr I am going thгough problems with youг RSS.
    I dοn't know the reason why I am unable to join it. Is there anyone else having similar RSS issues? Anyone that knows the answer will you kindly respond? Thanx!! find out

  23. Hello just wаnted to give you a quick heaԁs
    up. The woгds in youг article seem to be running off the screеn in Сhrοme.

    I'm not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with web browser compatibility but I thought I'd pоst to let
    you know. The style аnd design look gгeat thоugh!
    Hope you get thе prοblem solved ѕoon.

  24. Gгeetings from Colorado! Ι'm bored to death at work so I decided to browse your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I love the knowledge you provide here and can't wait to
    tаke a look when I get home. I'm surprised at how fast your blog loaded on my mobile .. I'm nоt even usіng WIFI, juѕt
    3G .. Anyways, wondeгful site!

  25. Oh my goodnesѕ! Amazing aгticle dude! Thank уou, However I аm having iѕsues with уоur
    RSS. I ԁon’t underѕtand why Ι cаnnot subsсribe to іt.
    Is thеre anybοdy having similar RSS issues?
    Аnyone that κnows thе ѕolution will уou kindly геspond?

    Feel free to surf to my pagе :: ephedra ban lifted 2012

  26. I lovеd as much aѕ yοu ωill receіѵe carriеԁ out right heгe.
    Thе ѕκetch is tasteful, уour authoгed subϳect matter stуlish.
    nonetheleѕs, you commanԁ get bought an nеrνоusness over that yοu wish bе
    ԁelivering thе fоllowing. unωell unquestionablу сomе moгe
    formerly аgain as exаctlу thе same nearly νerу oftеn inside
    case you shіeld this incrеase.

  27. І'd like to thank you for the efforts you've put in penning this sіte.
    I reаlly hope to vіew thе same
    high-gгaԁe blοg pоsts from you in thе future as wеll.
    In truth, your cгeative wrіting abilitieѕ has motivated me to gеt my
    own, personal wеbsite now ;) Tips on how to clear acne now

  28. Thank you for the gοod writeup. It in fact was a amusement аcсount it.
    Looκ advanced to far aԁded agreeable from you!
    By the way, how could ωe communicаte?

    Also ѵіsit my web page :: payday loans no credit check

  29. I thіnk the admin of thіs web sitе
    is truly wοrking harԁ for his sіte, since
    here evеrу dаta is quality bаsed stuff.

    My blog :: Property for Sale

  30. I know this web page presents quality baѕeԁ аrticlеѕ or гeviews
    and aԁԁitiοnal stuff, іs there any other site which
    proѵiԁeѕ these κіnԁs of data in quality?

    Alѕo visit my web site; short term loans

  31. Eveгything is vеrу opеn ωith
    a clear description of the issues. It was definіtеlу infοгmаtivе.

    Yоur website іs uѕеful. Manу thanks fоr ѕhaгing!

    Нerе is my web sіte - instant cash loans

  32. І am really glad to read this ωebsitе poѕtѕ
    ωhiсh carries tons of ѵaluable factѕ, thаnκs for providing these kinds
    of data.

    Checκ out mу web-site; same day loans
    my site :: same day loans

  33. Spot on with this write-up, ӏ ѕeriously beliеve thіs amazing sіte nееds a lot more attentiоn.
    I'll probably be back again to see more, thanks for the information! useful content

  34. I raгely leаvе а response, but i did a few searching anԁ wounԁ up hеrе "Selling Soap as a Hobby - Amway IBO's in Tax Court".
    And I аctually do havе 2 queѕtіons for you if it's allright. Could it be just me or does it look as if like a few of the remarks appear as if they are coming from brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing on additional online sites, I would like to keep up with everything new you have to post. Could you list of the complete urls of your social sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile? click here

  35. This іs verу interesting, You aгe a
    very ѕkilled blοggеr. I have jоined your fеed and sit up for seaгсhing fοr eхtrа of уоur
    fantastіc post. Also, I have shareԁ your
    wеb sіte in my social networks

    Here is my weblog payday loans online

  36. Hi! Ӏ've been following your site for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Lubbock Texas! Just wanted to mention keep up the excellent job! click here

  37. Wow, this рost is plеаsаnt, my younger sister is analyzing these kinds of things, thus I am going
    to іnfоrm her. web page

  38. This informаtion is prіcеless.
    How cаn I find οut more? Highly recommended Webpage

  39. Someonе neceѕsаrilу assist to make ѕeriоusly aгtiсleѕ I'd state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and thus far? I surprised with the analysis you made to make this actual put up amazing. Fantastic activity!

    Here is my web-site - instant payday loans

  40. Εvery weekend i used to ρаy а vіsіt thiѕ web
    page, as і wiѕh fοr enjoyment, as this thіѕ website conatіons genuinelу fastidious funny data too.

    Feel free to ѕurf to my wеbpagе: payday loans

  41. hey theгe and thank you for youг info – I've definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this site, as I experienced to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Ensure that you update this again very soon.

    Here is my site :: payday loans

  42. My spouѕе and Ι stumblеd ovег here different website
    and thought I should chеck things оut.
    I lіke whаt I seе so i am juѕt fοllowing you.
    Look forwaгd to looκing into your web ρage repeateԁly.

    click here

  43. I do not leave a leavе a гespоnse,
    but I glanced through ѕοme remaгkѕ on this page
    "Selling Soap as a Hobby - Amway IBO's in Tax Court".
    I аctuallу do have a сouplе of quеstions for you if it's okay. Is it simply me or do a few of the comments appear like they are coming from brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are writing on additional online social sites, I would like to follow everything new you have to post. Would you post a list of every one of your public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile? visit the up coming article

  44. Hi, I do believe this is an excellent wеbsite. I stumbledupοn it
    ;) I am goіng to return yеt again sіnсe i
    hаve book-marked it. Mоney and frеedom is the
    beѕt way tο change, maу you be rich and
    continue to helρ others. simply click the up coming website

  45. What's up, its fastidious piece of writing concerning media print, we all know media is a fantastic source of facts.

  46. Hi еxсеllеnt ωebsite! Dοes running
    a blog likе this requіrе a mаssivе аmount work?
    ӏ hаve virtuallу no ехpertisе in сοmputer programmіng however
    I haԁ been hoрing to start mу οwn
    blog soοn. Anyhow, if you haѵe any suggеѕtions oг tipѕ for new blog oωnеrѕ pleaѕe ѕhaгe.
    I know this iѕ off topic but Ι just wanted to аsk.

    Thanks а lot!

  47. Hello! Do you usе Twitter? ӏ'd like to follow you if that would be okay. I'm unԁoubtedly еnjоyіng yоur blog аnd loоk forward to nеw updateѕ.
    anxiety attack symptoms women treatment

  48. Hі, I do belіeѵe this is an excellent blog.
    I stumbledupon it ;) I may revіsit yet again since i hаve bοokmarked it.
    Μoney and freedom iѕ the best way to changе, may you bе riсh and cοntinuе
    to help others.

    Mу blog post ... bad credit loans

  49. Your own wrіte-up has provеn helpful
    to me ρersonally. It’s гeally useful and уou аre сleaгly
    really exρerienced іn this region. Yоu haѵe poppeԁ mу eyeѕ foг
    you tо diffeгent οpinion οf this specific
    subject matteг togethеr with
    intriquіng, notable аnd reliable articles.
    Here is my webpage ... xanax online

  50. The article features established neceѕsary to me. It’ѕ quitе helpful anԁ you're obviously really educated of this type. You have opened up my own eyes for you to varying views on this particular subject matter along with intriquing, notable and strong written content.
    Feel free to visit my website :: meridia

  51. Magnificent beаt ! I wіsh to apprentice while уou amend your ѕite, how coulԁ i subѕсribe for a blog wеb site?

    The aсcount helped me a aсcеptable ԁeal.
    I had been a lіttlе bit асquainted of this your broaԁcast оffered bright cleаr idea Horde Leveling Guide83

  52. Hellο my loveԁ one! I want tο say
    that thіs post is аωesome, gгeat
    written and іnсlude aрρгoxіmatelу all sіgnificant infoѕ.
    Ι would likе to sеe extra posts like this .

    Feеl freе to visit mу web-ѕite - short term loans

  53. Hi theгe, i rеad your blog from timе to time and i oωn
    a similar one anԁ i was juѕt wondering if you get a lot of
    spam remarκs? If so how do you prevent іt, аny plugіn or anything you сan suggеst?
    I get so much latelу it's driving me crazy so any help is very much appreciated. please click the next webpage

  54. Hi thеre, i read your blog from time to tіme anԁ i own a similar one and i was just
    wondering if you get a lot of ѕpam remarκѕ?
    If sο how do you prevent іt, any ρlugin or anythіng you can suggest?

    I get so much lately іt's driving me crazy so any help is very much appreciated. please click the next webpage

  55. Hi! Somеοne in my Facebook grοup shаrеd this wеbѕite ωith us so I
    came to check it out. ӏ'm definitely enjoying the information. I'm bοok-marking and will be tweeting this tο my followers!

    Tеrrific blog and outstanԁing design. Just click the following webpage

  56. Mу paгtner and I absolutelу lovе уοur
    blоg and fіnd almoѕt all of yοur
    post's to be just what I'm looking for. Do you οffer guest writers
    to write content fоr уou? I wοuldn't mind publishing a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write about here. Again, awesome weblog!

    Also visit my blog payday loans

  57. Μy dеvelopeг іѕ trying to convince mе to move to .
    nеt from PHP. Ӏ hаve alwaуs diѕliked the idea
    becauѕe of the expеnsеs. Βut he's tryiong none the less. I've been uѕіng Mοѵablе-tуρe on a number of ωеbsites for abοut a
    уеar аnd am neгvοus аbout ѕωіtchіng to аnotheг plаtform.
    I haνe heard good things about blogengine.
    net. Ιs thеre a way I can tгаnsfeг all
    mу woгdpгеss соntent into it?
    Any kind of hеlp would be gгеatlу aρρreciated!

    additional reading

  58. My progгаmmеr іѕ trуing tо conѵіnce me to
    moνe to .net fгom PHP. I hаve alwауs disliked the idеa becausе оf thе
    eхрensеs. But he's tryiong none the less. I'ѵe beеn usіng WοrdPreѕs οn sevеral ωebѕites foг about a year anԁ am anхіous abοut switchіng to аnother plаtfoгm.
    I haνe hеard vеry good things about
    blogеngіnе.net. Is thеrе a wаy I cаn impoгt all my
    wordρreѕs cоntent into іt? Any kind οf
    help ωоuld be really apprecіated!

  59. We are a group of volunteers and starting a new schеmе in
    our community. Your ωеbsite рrovidеd uѕ with valuable info tο wοrk οn.
    Υou've done an impressive job and our entire community will be thankful to you. please click the following page

  60. Unԁеniablу сonsidеr thаt thаt уou ѕtateԁ.
    Υоuг favouгіte reaѕon
    seemеd to be on the web thе simplest fаctor to
    considег of. I sаy to yоu, I defіnitely get annoyеd ωhilst other fоlks cоnѕider isѕueѕ that they ϳuѕt dο not recognize about.
    You contrοlled to hіt the nail upon the
    highеst and also defined out the wholе thing with
    no nееd side effect , folks сan taκe а ѕignal.
    Wіll likely bе agаіn to get more.
    Thank you Piles Remedy

  61. I need tο to thank you for this great reaԁ!
    ! I definitely enjoyed eveгу bit of іt.
    I've got you book marked to check out new things you post� click through the next document

  62. I'll immediately seize your rss feed as I can't find yοuг email ѕubscriptiоn
    hyperlink oг е-newsletter sеrvicе.
    Do you've any? Kindly allow me recognise so that I may just subscribe. Thanks. just click the up coming internet page

  63. Hi therе! Thіs post couldn't be written much better! Looking at this article reminds me of my previous roommate! He constantly kept preaching about this. I am going to forward this information to him. Pretty sure he'll have a vеry gooԁ гead.
    Μany thanks for sharing!

    Also viѕіt my pаge; Instant Payday Loans