Kenneth M. and Delores J. Hairston - Page 9




                                         - 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