Andrew and Margita Zards et al. - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               C.  Depreciation                                                       
               Section 167(a) allows "as a depreciation deduction a                   
          reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear * * * of             
          property used in the trade or business, or * * * of property held           
          for the production of income."  The depreciable basis of property           
          acquired by purchase is cost.  See sec. 167(g).  If depreciable             
          and nondepreciable property, such as improved real estate, is               
          bought for a lump sum, the purchase price must be allocated                 
          between the land (nondepreciable property) and the depreciable              
          improvements (e.g, buildings).  See sec. 1.167(a)-5, Income Tax             
          Regs.  Depreciation deductions may not be claimed until an asset            
          is placed in service.  Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 561              
          (1988); sec. 1.167(a)-10(b), Income Tax Regs.                               
               On its 1985 return, Good Shepherd claimed a deduction for              
          depreciation of $13,583, based on a total cost basis for                    
          depreciable property of $833,000.  We assume that such                      
          depreciable property is a portion of the property.  Deductions              
          for depreciation as set forth in our findings of fact were                  
          claimed by Good Shepherd for 1986 through 1987.  In our findings            
          of fact, we have recited a description of the property as an                
          improved 86-acre tract.  Petitioners have proposed, although we             
          have not found, that the purchase price paid by Good Shepherd for           
          the property was over $1 million.  Petitioners have failed to               
          show on what basis Good Shepherd allocated the purchase price of            






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011