- 26 -
structure at issue and, thus, the structure was not a building.
Id. at 484-485.
Moreover, the cases cited in Munford involved specialized
structures that are distinguishable from the Reserve Facility in
this case. In those cases, the Court's ultimate inquiry was what
functions the particular structures served. Merchants
Refrigerating Co. v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 856 (1973); Central
Citrus Co. v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 365 (1972); Catron v.
Commissioner, 50 T.C. 306 (1968). In all of those cases, we
found that the buildinglike structures functioned as more than
mere storage facilities. See, for example, Catron v.
Commissioner, supra, where the refrigerated area of a large
Quonset-like structure was used for the cold storage of apples;
Merchants Refrigerating Co. v. Commissioner, supra, where a large
freezer room was used for the storage of frozen foods; and
Central Citrus Co. v. Commissioner, supra, where atmospherically
controlled "sweet rooms" were used to ripen fruit.
We find that, unlike the structures in Munford and the cases
cited therein, human activity is essential, rather than merely
incidental, to the function of the Reserve Facility. Petitioner
agrees that the function of the Reserve Facility is to facilitate
the storage and retrieval of merchandise. Similarly, the primary
function of a typical warehouse is also the storage and retrieval
of merchandise. However, petitioner attempts to avoid
characterizing the Reserve Facility as a warehouse based on its
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011