- 87 -
would be damaged on removal, and is not reusable except for scrap
purposes.
Petitioners counter that the carpeting in all material
respects is indistinguishable from the wall-to-wall carpeting
installed in guest rooms, office space, bar areas, and dining
rooms of a motel described in Rev. Rul. 67-349, 1967-2 C.B. 48.
In that Revenue Ruling, respondent ruled that the carpeting was
personal property for purposes of section 1.48-1(c), Income Tax
Regs., and not a structural component of a building.
The carpeting described in Rev. Rul. 67-349 was fastened
with hooks attached to wood strips that were nailed along each
wall. Rev. Rul. 67-349, 1967-2 C.B. at 48. In holding that the
carpeting, installed over concrete floors, constituted personal
property, respondent explained:
The "wall-to wall" carpeting installed in a building in
the manner described above is not an integral part of the
floor itself, and therefore, the carpeting is not a
permanent covering for the floor. Thus, the "wall-to-wall"
carpeting in the instant case is not a "structural
component" within the meaning of the regulations. [Rev.
Rul. 67-349, 1967-2 C.B. at 49.]
Respondent contends that the carpeting involved in the
instant case is distinguishable from the carpeting described in
Rev. Rul. 67-349, supra, because it is more permanent, is
installed directly on an unsealed concrete slab by adhesive, and
is not reusable. Petitioners counter that S. Rept. 95-1263,
supra, 1978-3 C.B. (Vol. 1) at 415, see supra note 48, expressly
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011