Joseph M. and Marjorie Sita - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          the pay phones, obtaining all licenses needed to operate the pay            
          phones, insuring and maintaining the pay phones, collecting and             
          accounting for the revenues generated by the pay phones, and                
          paying vendor commissions and fees.  Petitioners never saw or               
          possessed the pay phones or knew where they were to be installed.           
          Furthermore, Alpha Telcom was entitled to receive most of the               
          profit, and it bore the risk of loss if the pay phones did not              
          generate sufficient revenue.  Regardless of the revenues actually           
          generated, petitioners were guaranteed to be paid at least $58.34           
          per month per pay phone.  See Arevalo v. Commissioner, 124 T.C.             
          at 247, 253.  In addition, the ATC pay phone agreements allowed             
          petitioners to sell the pay phones back to ATC for a fixed                  
          formula price.                                                              
               For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that petitioners            
          did not receive the benefits and burdens of ownership with                  
          respect to the seven pay phones.  Therefore, they are not                   
          entitled to a depreciation deduction of $2,143 under section 167            
          for 2001.  See Arevalo v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 253.                    

















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008