- 13 -
would clearly qualify as section 179 property. But what would
substitute for the lodging accommodations a motor home provides?
We know from the stipulated facts that the predominant number of
motor home rentals were for less than 30 days.9 This strongly
suggests that Shirley’s customers would rent hotel or motel
rooms, campground space, or other transient lodging. All of
these would qualify for the exception to the general exclusion of
lodging from the category of section 179 property.
Because both the substitute transportation and the substi-
tute lodging would qualify, we conclude that motor homes, like
Shirley’s, used by renters mostly for periods of less than 30
days, are section 179 property. As we have in other cases of
deciding eligibility for the investment tax credit,10 we leave
grappling with a difficult element of a difficult test for
another case. In this one, petitioners are allowed a deduction
under section 179 for the purchase of MH #22 in 1997.
To reflect the other concessions and compromises already
made by the parties,
9 The stipulated evidence shows that 24 of Shirley’s 27
motor homes were rented to transients more than half the time
that those 24 motor homes were rented during 1997.
10 See, e.g., Tibbs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-515
(avoiding decision on whether mobile homes were “tangible
personal property”); Pickren v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-52
(avoiding decision on whether mobile homes qualified as hotel or
motel).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011