- 58 -
property for purposes of ITC equally are applicable to decide
whether the property constitutes tangible personal property for
purposes of MACRS. Accordingly, we conclude that, to the extent
a disputed property item would have qualified as tangible
personal property for ITC, that property also will qualify as
tangible personal property for purposes of ACRS and MACRS.
Additional Arguments
Respondent further contends that the tests developed to
decide whether property qualified for ITC are inapplicable to
ascertain ACRS recovery classes or MACRS recovery periods because
ITC and ACRS and MACRS accomplish their capital cost incentives
in a different manner and focus on different factors.
Respondent's arguments in support of that contention are premised
on the position that the ACRS and MACRS depreciation deductions
should be tied to the useful life of the property involved. We
rejected a similar position in Simon v. Commissioner, 103 T.C.
247 (1994), affd. 68 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995), and Liddle v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 285 (1994), affd. 65 F.3d 329 (3d Cir.
1995), and we reject it here.
Other arguments raised by respondent in support of the
position that the tests used to ascertain whether property
qualifies as tangible personal property for ITC purposes are not
applicable for purposes of ACRS and MACRS also are without merit,
and we do not address them here.
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011