@Anonymous_ wrote:
Thus, in my opinion, not being able to satisfy the safe harbor but, instead, trying to make a case based upon facts-and-circumstances for this activity is not a great approach.
I agree that a large degree of caution should be used if they don't meet the Safe Harbor, but it *IS* only a Safe Harbor. So that means they can potentially qualify based on the facts-and-circumstances that don't meet the Safe Harbor.
But my original point was that if they were nowhere near the Safe Harbor criteria, it would likely be a REALLY 'hard sell' to claim they meet the facts-and-circumstances.
