- 24 -
supra at 477; sec. 1.48-1(e)(1), Income Tax Regs. Thus, we
conclude that the Reserve Facility resembles a building.
We must next consider whether the Reserve Facility functions
as a building. The function test requires a determination as to
"whether the purpose of the structure at issue is a purpose
ejusdem generis to the purposes described by example in section
1.48-1(e)(1), Income Tax Regs." Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra at 480 (citing Consolidated Freightways, Inc. & Affiliates
v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 768, 795 (1980), affd. in part and revd.
in part on other grounds 708 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1983)). In
Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-469,
affd. 789 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir. 1986), we stated that
The definition in section 1.48-1(e)(1), Income Tax
Regs., expressly includes as "buildings" factory and
office buildings where human activity may normally be
expected to be of great importance; it also expressly
includes as "buildings" warehouses, barns, and
structures providing parking spaces, where human
activity may be of little or no importance. The courts
have considered the matter of human activity, sometimes
in terms of the nature of the human activity and
sometimes in terms of the quantity and quality of human
activity in the structure. * * *
Therefore, in applying this test, a major focus of inquiry has
been whether the structure provides working space for employees
that is more than merely incidental to the primary function of
the structure. This requires consideration of both the quantity
and quality of the human activity within the structure. Id.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011