Because I'm not trying to prove that net leases are always trades or businesses. I'm only trying to show that they sometimes are in order to discredit your argument that the phrase "a business where property is regularly based on a net lease basis" is talking about anything other than a business.
Yet you say that we go to Sec 162 to find the meaning of “active trade or business.”
And if the phrase “…a business where property is regularly [rented] based on a net lease basis” isn’t talking anything other than a business, then the taxpayers it’s not talking about (212 taxpayers, always intending to be 212) fall through the cracks. They’d get an immediate deduction for their pre-opening costs as per Post #28…despite what you say.
My best guess is that they wanted to emphasize the requirement for substantial activity to accompany a mere net lease for them to accept that it's a business.
And my best guess is that the net lease described in the PLR, which was accorded non-trade or business classification, was very much akin to the passive net lease mentioned in the 1984 Report. I have a PLR from 1983, you cite a case from the 1950’s that involved a number of properties…
A status quo which you haven't shown to exist.
I think it’s your position that is found not to exist. If it did, you’d be able to point to it in a case, but you can’t. Instead, what the cases show is that once something is started, then gentlemen, start your amortization…
And it’s no wonder that rental activities are covered by the passive rules…whether or not they’re trades or businesses.