- 9 -
Court has addressed the extraordinary personal services exception
with facts similar to ours. Two cases involved equipment leasing
activities that are distinguishable from the facts here. Kessler
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-185; Hairston v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-386. Neither case is dispositive.
Both cases concerned equipment leasing activities, while we
are addressing real property leasing activities in conjunction
with legal support services. Moreover, the taxpayers in both
Hairston and Kessler personally owned the equipment they leased
to their wholly owned companies, which in turn leased the
equipment to third-party end users. In each case, the lease
provided that the taxpayers’ company would perform equipment
maintenance. The taxpayers therefore performed maintenance
services not in their role as owners of the equipment but rather
in their role as corporate officers or employees. The Court
consequently found that the services performed were unrelated to
the taxpayers’ leasing activities. Kessler v. Commissioner,
supra; Hairston v. Commissioner, supra. Here, AGI owned the real
property that it leased to tenants, not petitioners, and AGI
provided the services. AGI was therefore the lessor and service
provider.
Moreover, the services provided in Hairston and Kessler were
minimal in comparison with the legal support services AGI
provided to its attorney-tenants. While the services in Hairston
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011