- 25 -
Petitioner asserts that the primary function of the Reserve
Facility is the efficient storage and retrieval of its inventory.
Petitioner contends that the activities of its employees in the
Reserve Facility are merely ancillary to this function. Relying
on Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 484-485, and cases
cited therein, petitioner argues that this Court has repeatedly
held that the storage and removal of goods by employees is not
the type of work or activity that is necessary to categorize a
facility as a building. We disagree.
Contrary to petitioner's interpretation, we do not examine
the type of employee activity in a vacuum. Rather, the activity
must be examined in relation to the "nature of the business
venture housed within that structure." Valmont Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1059, 1073 (1980); see also Sunnyside
Nurseries v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 113 (1972). The primary
function of the refrigerated structure at issue in Munford was to
"[maintain] sub-zero temperatures to prevent the spoilage of
frozen foods." Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner, 849 F.2d at 1404.
The activities of the employees in Munford were limited in both
scope and duration due to the cold temperature of the
refrigerated structure. Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.
at 483. Therefore, despite the fact that employees routinely
moved goods into and out of the structure, we held that this
activity was merely incidental to the specialized purpose of the
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011