- 14 - transactions among petitioner, ATC, and Alpha Telcom, we reject petitioner’s contention for the reasons discussed below. First, petitioner had no control over the pay phones, never had possession of the pay phones, and does not know what the pay phones look like or where they are located. Petitioner signed an agreement containing blank spaces where the pay phones were to be identified. Second, petitioner never had the power to select the location of the pay phones or enter into site agreements with the owners or leaseholders of the premises where the pay phones were to be located; that power was held by Alpha Telcom through the Alpha Telcom service agreement. Third, no evidence indicates that petitioner paid any property taxes, insurance premiums, or license fees with respect to the pay phones. Fourth, there was minimal risk of loss for petitioner because the ATC pay phone agreement, in combination with the Alpha Telcom service agreement, allowed petitioner to sell legal title to the pay phones back to ATC for 10 percent less than the amount that he invested in them in the first 36 months and for the full amount that he invested in them after 36 months. Fifth, under the terms of the Alpha Telcom service agreement, Alpha Telcom was entitled to receive most of the profits from the pay phones.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011