- 12 -
(1993); Neff v. Am. Dairy Queen Corp., 58 F.3d 1063,
1066 (5th Cir. 1995) (construing the term “operate”, as
used in ADA title III, as follows: “To ‘operate,’ in
the context of a business operation, means ‘to put or
keep in operation,’ ‘to control or direct the
functioning of,’ ‘to conduct the affairs of; manage,’”
(citations omitted)). [Id. at 256.]
Consistent with our conclusion in Arevalo, we conclude that
petitioners did not own, lease, or operate anything as a result
of their investment in the pay phones and were never under an
obligation to comply with the requirements of ADA title III
during the year in issue. See id. We further conclude, as we
did in Arevalo, that petitioners were under no obligation to
comply with ADA title IV during the year in issue, since
petitioners were not actively engaged in the provision of
services to anyone as a result of their investment in the pay
phones. See id. at 257 (and cases cited thereat).
IV. Loss
Petitioners also raised the issue of whether they were
entitled to claim a loss under section 165(c)(2). In support of
their claim, petitioners point to a letter they believed to have
been written by someone at the Internal Revenue Service, wherein
it is concluded that petitioners may be entitled to claim a loss
in 2001. Petitioners have not established that they incurred a
loss in 1999, and we need not decide whether they incurred a loss
in a year not before the Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011