Robert D. and Ana M. Shirley - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         


          detailed, almost minute-by-minute logs required for this test to            
          work.7                                                                      
               Other tests are possible.  One could conceive of a test that           
          looked to the value of the mobility of the motor home to the                
          renter versus the value of its capacity to be used for lodging.             
          Or one could try to identify the “primary function” of a motor              
          home (though this would seem to be the same as trying to identify           
          its “primary use.”)8  But none of these tests--including both               
          petitioners’ and respondent’s--suggests a way out of the                    


               7 Respondent’s position is weakened by the reality that                
          property undoubtedly used for transportation--cars, for                     
          example--are at rest in garages and parking lots much longer than           
          they are on the road.  We do note that in LaPoint v.                        
          Commissioner, 94 T.C. 733, 735 (1990), the parties stipulated               
          that the taxpayer used a car for business uses “85 percent of the           
          time”, but we are not sure how to construe it.  It seems unlikely           
          this meant total time rather than percentage of time in use, but            
          it could also have meant percentage of trips or even mileage (if            
          the taxpayer in LaPoint kept the usual log for those wishing to             
          deduct car-related expenses).  In any event, the key issue in               
          that case was whether the car was used “predominantly * * * in              
          connection with the furnishing of lodging” id. at 736, and so it            
          gives limited help in analyzing the question of simultaneous use            
          of motor homes for both lodging and transportation.                         
               8 In L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-175,             
          affd. 145 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 1998), we had to decide whether a           
          rack system inside a warehouse, which both held merchandise and             
          supported the warehouse’s walls and roof, was tangible personal             
          property.  Taxpayers proposed a primary function test, as opposed           
          to a strict structural function test.  The Court, however, found            
          that even a primary function test would not favor petitioners               
          because the necessity of the rack system to prevent a collapse of           
          the building did not allow the structural function to be                    
          categorized as secondary.                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011