- 11 -
harbors, but the deductibility of a loss under section 469(h)(1)
depends also on regular and continuous participation in the
activity.
While we have grave doubts concerning the time allegedly
spent by petitioners,6 even if that time would satisfy the
minimum requirement of the regulation, the work performed by
petitioners in connection with the leasing activity was not
regular and continuous participation. We reemphasize here, the
activity with which we are concerned is the rental of the
property. As we have already outlined, the rental of the
condominium to many different tenants over the course of the
rental season required substantial work and time. The rental
agent advertised, showed the condominium, collected rent and
deposits from tenants, collected and dispensed keys, hired a
cleaning service to clean the condominium between tenants, hired
maintenance people to perform repairs on the premises, and
maintained an office to receive calls from tenants and
6 We are not persuaded that the time allegedly spent by
petitioners is an accurate reflection of what transpired.
Petitioners claim to have spent 5 to 6 hours cleaning two
bathrooms, 8 hours cleaning a kitchen, and 5 hours "refreshing"
plastic floral arrangements. We are left with the conclusion
that much of the total time allegedly spent was exaggerated or,
if not, was spent primarily for the purposes of avoiding the
limitations of sec. 469. See sec. 1.469-5T(f)(2), Temporary
Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5726-5727 (Feb. 25, 1988). As set
out above, however, time is not the only measure of an
individual's participation. We, therefore, do not find it
necessary to determine the amount of time that petitioners spent
on the rental activity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011