FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

FEB 4 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL D. UNDERWOOD; DOLORES A. UNDERWOOD,

		Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

		Respondent-Appellee.	

Nos. 99-9015 & 99-9016
(T.C. Nos. 1356-89 & 		37159-86)
(Petition for Review)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
	In these consolidated cases, petitioners appeal from the Tax Court’s decision that they owed deficiencies for the taxable years 1979, 1981 and 1982.  The deficiency determinations were based on the Commissioner’s disallowance of deductions claimed by petitioners arising out of investments in oil and gas limited partnerships.
	On review, petitioners present one argument:  the Tax Court erred in finding that the profit motive is properly determined at the partnership level.  They maintain that the individual partner’s profit motive is the relevant inquiry under 26 U.S.C. § 183 and the applicable regulations.
	We review this legal question of statutory interpretation de novo.  See True Oil Co. v. Commissioner, 170 F.3d 1294, 1298 (10th Cir. 1999).  We have held that in determining whether activities were engaged in for profit for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 183, “we look to the economic motive of the partnership, not the individual investor.”  Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Cannon v. Commissioner, 949 F.2d 345, 349 (10th Cir. 1991)).  This panel cannot overturn the decision of another panel of this court.  See United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 120 S. Ct. 336 

(1999).  Consequently, petitioners’ argument against established law in this circuit must fail.  The petition for review of the Tax Court’s decision is DENIED.

				Entered for the Court

				Mary Beck Briscoe
				Circuit Judge