- 3 -
244 (2005), affd. 469 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2006); Crooks v.
Commissioner, 453 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 2006). No court has held to
the contrary. In short, this Court and the Courts of Appeals
have consistently held that a taxpayer’s investment in an
arrangement involving pay telephones marketed by Alpha Telcom,
Inc. (Alpha Telcom) and its wholly owned subsidiary American
Telecommunications Co., Inc. (ATC) did not support either (1) a
deduction for depreciation, because the taxpayer did not have the
requisite benefits and burdens of ownership to support a
depreciable interest in the pay telephones, or (2) a disabled
access credit under section 44, because such investment was not
an eligible access expenditure.
On September 20, 2004, the parties in the instant case filed
a comprehensive Stipulation Of Facts consisting of 33 numbered
paragraphs and 31 exhibits. The Stipulation Of Facts and
accompanying exhibits provide an evidentiary record for this
case, discussed more fully below, that does not materially differ
from the facts presented in the Alpha Telcom cases already
decided by this Court and the Courts of Appeal. Therefore, on
June 21, 2007, we ordered the parties to show cause in writing
why the Court should not enter a decision sustaining respondent’s
determination as to (1) the denial of deductions for depreciation
on the telephones, and (2) the denial of disabled access credits
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007