- 11 -
circumstances. See Arevalo v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 251-252;
Grodt & McKay Realty, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1237.
The denial of depreciation deductions in the other Alpha
Telcom cases has routinely been supported by the examination of
eight factors: (1) Whether legal title passes; (2) the manner in
which the parties treat the transaction; (3) whether the
purchaser acquired any equity in the property; (4) whether the
purchaser has any control over the property, and, if so, the
extent of such control; (5) whether the purchaser bears the risk
of loss or damage to the property; and (6) whether the purchaser
will receive any benefit from the operation and disposition of
the property. See, e.g., Arevalo v. Commissioner, 469 F.3d at
439-440; Crooks v. Commissioner, 453 F.3d at 656. Just as we
concluded in Arevalo and Crooks, we conclude here that the
factors clearly work against petitioner and no depreciation
deduction is warranted.
The stipulation of facts and accompanying documents reveal
that here, as in the related litigation, Alpha Telcom was
responsible for the installation, location selection, site
negotiation, and maintenance of the pay telephones. Alpha Telcom
bore the risk of loss if the telephones did not generate
sufficient revenue because petitioner was guaranteed to be paid
at least $58.34 per month per pay telephone, regardless of the
revenues actually generated, and it was Alpha Telcom who received
the majority of any profit from the telephones. Further limiting
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007