- 10 -
in accord with their ordinary and natural meaning.
See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228
(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
petitioner did not own, lease, or operate anything as a result of
his investments in the pay phones and was never under an
obligation to comply with the requirements of ADA title III
during the years in issue. See id. We further conclude, as we
did in Arevalo, that petitioner was under no obligation to comply
with ADA title IV during the years in issue, since petitioner was
not actively engaged in the provision of services to anyone as a
result of his investments in the pay phones. See id. at 257 (and
cases cited thereat). Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: May 25, 2011