- 10 -
53 Fed. Reg. 5725-5726 (Feb. 25, 1988).6 We will discuss each of
petitioner's arguments separately.
Section 1.469-5T(a)(3), Temporary Income Tax Regs.
With respect to section 1.469-5T(a)(3), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., supra, petitioner argues that during each of the years in
issue, she participated in the condominium hotel activity for
more than 100 hours, and that no single individual devoted more
time to petitioners' unit than petitioner. Respondent contends
that petitioner does not meet the test of section 1.469-5T(a)(3),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra, since petitioner has not
established the hours spent in the activity. Respondent further
argues that, even if petitioner did establish that she spent more
than 100 hours in the activity, the time spent was in the
capacity of an investor and not in the day-to-day operation of
the activity. See sec. 1.469-5T(f)(2)(ii)(B), Temporary Income
Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5727 (Feb. 25, 1988). In addition,
respondent argues that other individuals (the paid hotel
management staff) spent more time in the activity than
petitioner.
6 Although sec. 1.469-5T(f)(3), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,
53 Fed. Reg. 5727 (Feb. 25, 1988), provides that the
participation of spouses may be combined for the purposes of
determining material participation, petitioners do not argue that
petitioner Barry Scheiner's attendance at board meetings in the
capacity as a unit owner should be considered for the purposes of
determining whether petitioners materially participated in the
condominium hotel activity. See supra note 4. We make no
findings in this regard and limit our discussion to petitioner
Marilyn Scheiner's activities. See sec. 469(c)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011