- 9 -
of operations into a single undertaking. Furthermore, by its
plain language, this provision does not apply to rental
operations.3 Moreover, the reference to direct ownership in
section 1.469-4T(c)(2)(v), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra,
makes it clear that ownership, not control, is the relevant
factor in determining combinability under this section.
Thus, because we find that the ownership test of section
1.469-4T(c)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra, has not been
met, we hold that petitioner may not combine the Rental Operation
and his share in Associates' nonpassive operations into a single
undertaking. See Wiseman v. Commissioner, supra; see also 5
Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, sec. 24C.11 (1990); cf.
Moore v. United States, 943 F. Supp. 603, 615-617 (E.D. Va.
1996).
In any event, petitioner cannot succeed herein because he
cannot satisfy the de minimis exception of section 1.469-4T(d),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.
3 Sec. 1.469-4T(f)(1)(i) and (ii)(A), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., 54 Fed. Reg. 20552 (May 12, 1989), provides:
(1) Applicability. (i) In general. This paragraph (f)
applies to a taxpayer's interests in trade or business
undertakings (within the meaning of paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) of this section).
(ii) Trade or business undertaking. For purposes of
this paragraph (f), the term "trade or business undertaking"
means any undertaking in which a taxpayer has an interest,
other than --
(A) A rental undertaking * * * [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011