Andrew Wesley Frank & Joy Mary Frank - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               A repair is an expenditure for the purpose of keeping                  
               the property in an ordinarily efficient operating                      
               condition.  It does not add to the value of the                        
               property, nor does it appreciably prolong its life.  It                
               merely keeps the property in an operating condition                    
               over its probable useful life for the uses for which it                
               was acquired.  Expenditures for that purpose are                       
               distinguishable from those for replacements,                           
               alterations, improvements or additions which prolong                   
               the life of the property, increase its value, or make                  
               it adaptable to a different use.  The one is a                         
               maintenance charge, while the others are additions to                  
               capital investment which should not be applied against                 
               current earnings. * * *                                                
          Illinois Merchants Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 103, 106             
          (1926).                                                                     
               Whether an expense is deductible or must be capitalized                
          is a question of fact.  See Plainfield-Union Water Co. v.                   
          Commissioner, 39 T.C. 333, 338 (1962) (the test is whether an               
          expense materially enhances the value of property or appreciably            
          prolongs the life of the property).  Amounts paid as part of a              
          general plan of capital improvement may be capitalized even                 
          though the payment would be deductible as an ordinary and                   
          necessary business expense if incurred separately.  See Moss v.             
          Commissioner, 831 F.2d 833, 839-842 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing             
          the rehabilitation doctrine), revg. T.C. Memo. 1986-128.                    
               Petitioners contend that they may deduct expenses for legal            
          and professional fees, repairs, supplies, and services for the              
          Mesa Verde property.                                                        
               In Kaonis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-184, affd.                  
          without published opinion 639 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981), we                  
          distinguished between expenses that add to the value of the                 



Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011