- 88 -
and unequivocally recognized that all carpeting is personal
property and is not to be considered a structural component of a
building.
Respondent contends, however, that the record does not show
that the carpeting involved in the instant case was installed
with adhesives designed to ease its removal as was the situation
in the example reflected in S. Rept. 95-1263, supra. Respondent
relies on Minot Fed. Sav. & Loan Association v. United States,
313 F. Supp. 294, 296 (D.N.D. 1970), affd. 435 F.2d 1368 (8th
Cir. 1970), wherein the District Court stated:
Carpeting is now considered a permanent covering and one of
the recognized methods of permanently finishing floors for
use. A finished floor, or permanent finished floor
covering, is essential for the proper and necessary
operation and maintenance of a building.
We conclude that the carpeting involved in the subject
category is not materially different from the carpeting described
in Rev. Rul. 67-349, supra. We are persuaded from the record
that the carpeting is not an integral part of the floor and
satisfies the criteria for tangible personal property outlined in
Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. at 672-673.
Petitioners have shown that they did not intend for the carpeting
to be permanently affixed to the underlying floor and that much
of the carpeting already has been removed. The carpeting was
attached with adhesives that facilitate ease of removal, and,
although the carpeting could have been reused in another
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011