- 11 -
A preliminary question we must decide is whether the work
done by petitioner in her capacity as a board member and officer
constitutes participation in the Wisp condominium hotel activity
or, alternatively, constitutes investor participation within the
meaning of section 1.469-5T(f)(2)(ii)(B), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., supra. In Mordkin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-187,
we held that the work done by a taxpayer on the board of
directors dealing with a wide range of issues relating to the
operation of a condominium hotel was not investor participation
within the meaning of section 1.469-5T(f)(2)(ii)(B), Temporary
Income Tax Regs., supra. Petitioner's activities as an officer
and member of the board of directors are similar to the
activities performed by the taxpayer in Mordkin. We similarly
conclude that petitioner's activities as a board member of Wisp
do not constitute investor participation.
We have found that petitioner spent at least 100 hours, but
not more than 148 hours, on board activities in 1991, and at
least 90 hours, but not more than 123 hours, in 1992. Even if
petitioner has exceeded the 100-hour threshold, petitioner's
activities will not constitute material participation under
section 1.469-5T(a)(3), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra, unless
she establishes that no other individual spent more time in
connection with the condominium rental activity. In this regard,
in measuring the time spent by any particular employee at Wisp,
petitioner argues that such an employee's time would need to be
divided by 167 (the number of units participating in the rental
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