- 12 -
of Committee Discussion Draft of Revenue Bill of 1961, at 9
(J. Comm. Print 1961)). We nevertheless held that, in deciding
whether the mobile homes at issue were used predominantly for
lodging, the key factor was the alternative to company-paid
accommodations their inhabitants would likely have bought. We
reasoned that “they are nonetheless used by individuals to
replace assets that clearly would not be [qualifying property]--
if * * * housing were not provided to the * * * employees, those
employees would be forced to either rent or buy other housing.”
Id. This substitute housing, it was implied, could not be
qualifying property because it was residential real estate. Of
course, from Union Pacific’s viewpoint, the mobile homes were
part of its productive investment, even if they were also used
for lodging.
Union Pacific is thus some guide to the general problem of
how to characterize property capable of two simultaneous uses.
As in Union Pacific, we must ask what Shirley’s customers would
have had to buy or rent if motor homes were not available. If
these substitute goods would be allowed as qualifying property
under section 50(b), then so would motor homes. Shirley’s
customers, unlike the railway workers in Union Pacific, would
need as substitute goods some combination of both lodging and
transportation. If a car or truck were rented to customers to
provide them with the mobility of a motor home, those vehicles
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011