- 28 -
that all of the work done by petitioner during the years at issue
in his capacity as a board member and an officer of Crestwood As-
sociation in connection with the operations of Crestwood Assoc-
iation constitutes work done by him in connection with his rental
activity at Crestwood that satisfies the definition of the term
"participation" in section 1.469-5(f)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Respondent does not dispute, or even address, that assumption.
Therefore, we shall proceed on the same assumption, although we
are in no way deciding herein that it is a correct assumption.20
In this connection, assuming arguendo, as petitioners and respon-
dent do, that all of the work done by petitioner during the years
at issue in his capacity as a board member and an officer of
Crestwood Association were work done by him in connection with
his rental activity at Crestwood within the meaning of section
1.469-5(f)(1), Income Tax Regs., on the instant record, we find
below that petitioners nonetheless have failed to prove that such
work, together with any work petitioner may have done that re-
lated exclusively to his two condominium units, constitutes
material participation by petitioner in his rental activity at
Crestwood for purposes of section 469 and the regulations there-
under.
20 We note that on the record before us we have no way of deter-
mining how much of the work done by petitioner during the years
at issue in connection with the operations of Crestwood Associa-
tion related, or should be treated as related, solely to his two
condominium units.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011