Opinion
February 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
Since the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff's predecessors-in-interest — ASC Telecommunications, Inc. ("Telecommunications") and Contel Satellite Corporation ("Satellite") — were engaged in the investment business and were not engaged in the conduct of any of the businesses enumerated in Tax Law §§ 183, 183-a, 184 and 184-a, they are not subject to the franchise taxes imposed pursuant to these sections of the Tax Law ( see, e.g. Debevoise Plimpton v. New York State Dept. of Taxation Fin., 80 N.Y.2d 657). While Telecommunications and Satellite were the general partners of the partnership American Satellite Company, which arguably engaged in activities enumerated in Tax Law §§ 183, 183-a, 184 and 184-a, the general partners were mere passive investors and did not participate in the day-to-day management or operations of American Satellite Company. Indeed, defendants' own field audit report describes Satellite as "a holding company with its exclusive business being a 50% ownership of American Satellite Company, a partnership."
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.