- 11 -
underlying dilemma of comparing a motor home’s use as lodging to
its use as transportation.
We think a better way to analyze whether mobile homes were
predominantly used for lodging lies in Union Pacific v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 32 (1988). In Union Pacific, railroad
employees who tested and replaced track in remote locations lived
in company-supplied, rent-free mobile homes. Union Pacific paid
these employees their normal wages and benefits and argued that
this meant the housing was just a required part of new track
installation, the type of productive activity that Congress meant
to qualify as creditable. Union Pacific thought the distinction
was important because the purpose of the investment tax credit
(like the purpose of section 179) was to stimulate production.
We have looked to the legislative history of the investment
tax credit for help in construing the meaning of its terms. In
Norwest Corp. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 358, 365 (1997) we noted
that Congress expressly said that the phrase “tangible personal
property” should not be narrowly defined. In Union Pacific, we
similarly noted that the legislative history of the lodging
exception showed that investment in “‘[l]odging, or residential
real estate, * * * is excluded on the grounds that this property
for the most part is used by consumers rather than in
production.’” Union Pacific v. Commissioner, supra at 39,
(quoting Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011