- 9 -
lodgings such as apartment buildings or houses. The parties
disagree about the consequences of this fact.
Petitioner urges us to adopt a bright-line test under which
we would consider a motor home as used “predominantly for
transportation” where it is regularly used in the taxpayer’s
business for transportation. Respondent would have us look to
the amount of time spent in the motor homes for transportation
versus the time spent in the motor homes for lodging.
The difficulty with both these positions is that neither
explains why, in measuring predominant use, one type of use
should “count” for more than the other. Petitioners’ position
amounts to an assertion that, if motor homes are used for
transportation, then transportation is their primary use. But
why this should be so, apart from the ease of administering this
as a bright-line test, is unclear. Respondent asserts that we
should use time as a common denominator of uses; if the time
spent in Shirley’s motor homes while they were traveling exceeded
the time spent in them while people were lodging, then and only
then would their primary use be transportation.
As petitioners point out, respondent does not suggest how we
deal with the problem of simultaneous use--some family members
sleeping, eating or cooking in the back while one drives. Nor
does respondent suggest how, in the real world, any businessman
could possibly rely on his rental customers to maintain the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011