- 9 -
In any event, no credible evidence supports petitioners’
contention that significant or extraordinary services were
performed either by them or on their behalf as owners of the
equipment. Personal services were not a dominant or significant
aspect of either the equipment rental relationship between
petitioners and Hairston or of the relationship between Hairston
and end users. See Frank v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-177.
The evidence does not establish that the type, frequency, and
value of the services that were provided to end users by
petitioners, as owners of the equipment or as officers and
employees of Hairston, were significant in comparison to the
value of the use of the equipment by end users. See sec. 1.469-
1T(e)(3)(iv) and (v), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg.
5702 (Feb. 25, 1988).
Petitioners cite a portion of the legislative history of
section 469 which describes a short-term rental of automobiles as
not constituting a rental activity under section 469 where the
lessor furnishes significant services. See S. Rept. 99-313, at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011