Not at all. The poster I responded to claimed this:

> a typical hotel is a tax vehicle that happens to rent rooms.

>In many cases, the owner/operator is nearly turnkey,

What does this even mean? Hotels can be turnkey, which in industry terminology means that everything is working sufficiently well such that you can start renting rooms immediately. An owner/operator being turnkey makes no sense.

> setting up a defacto managed business investment

Also makes no sense.

>Also in many of these cases, the franchiser provides contacts for financing, may directly facilitate/recruit Capital, and may even provide loans to the franchisee directly.

Even if true, what does this have to do with taxes?

>For most of these larger hotels, the actual act of renting out rooms, etc. is pretty much all automated/managed through the central system anyway,

No, the actual out of renting out rooms involves housekeepers, maintenance staff, guest service agents, cooks, and management making sure rooms are clean and habitable. Reserving a hotel room is mostly automated, but even that requires a person to manage conflicts of reservations (e.g. unexpectedly needing to extend a stay causing overbooking, changing room types, room locations, etc.)

>and the majority of the operating costs are structured in such a way as to minimize tax liability.

Who doesn't structure their operating costs to minimize their tax liability? If you file married joint instead of married separate or head of household, are you "structuring" your operating costs as a way to minimize tax liability?

The question of how a hotel is used to gain an tax advantage that would otherwise be unavailable remains unanswered.