So basically we are where we were before 199A, with sifting through the grey matter when trying to define a trade or business under 162 which doesn't define it clearly itself... but per the Supreme Court in Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987), said, “We accept the fact that to be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with continuity and regularity and that the taxpayer’s primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit.” 

Most of them are not in zoning compliance and a recent PA supreme court ruling gives Philadelphia the ability to go after ST landlords.https://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-nws-airbnb-ruling-state-supreme-court-20190501-xzxfpcbuvzhltesiapq2dwlgxy-story.html

You do have to do it but the Ohio Supreme court struct down the ruling that you need to have it done in order to evict so that is no longer a requirement. 

The State will not allow local municipalities to regulate STRs beyond a very low level, and the State's Supreme Court just issued a ruling that even restricts HOAs from discriminating against STRs.AZ has a wide variety of areas that appeal to visitors, from the southern area to the valley to the northern half of the state.

I believe the city lost again and is now filing a second appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 

That's what the big shabang was with the Obamacare individual mandate that went to the Supreme court...deciding if the government could mandate everyone buy something or not.

BUT... a website IS another means of advertisement - in an age where the internet reigns supreme more and more each day.Does a hunter only rely on going out with a rifle? 

Supreme property management is key.  

Family Trust Wins Supreme Court Fight Against Bike Trail

That said, I would probably recommend the CAR forms simply because (1) every item on the form is probably there as a result of some litigation, and therefore to use a form that doesn't have those clauses is subjecting yourself to risk  (2) the CAR forms are battle tested, and they hold up to the California supreme court  (3) it is a fair contract that protects both buyers and sellers.