- 30 - Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-532, affd. 778 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 1985). Therefore, the mere fact that the Reserve Facility is theoretically capable of being moved does not conclusively establish that it is not inherently permanent. In the instant case, petitioner has failed to establish that either the design or the construction of the Reserve Facility indicates a lack of permanence. The Reserve Facility was specifically designed for the site as an addition to petitioner's distribution center. Construction of the Reserve Facility required extensive site work. The foundation for the Reserve Facility, which petitioner concedes cannot be moved, also involved considerable effort and expense. Moreover the materials used and the method of construction further indicate the permanent nature of the Reserve Facility. Finally, petitioner concedes that it has no plans to move the Reserve Facility and that the time and effort involved, if it were to move the structure, would be substantial. In light of the evidence presented, we find that the Reserve Facility is inherently permanent and thus an improvement to petitioner's land. Relying on section 1.48-1(c), Income Tax Regs., petitioner nevertheless contends that the Reserve Facility is in the nature of machinery and qualifies as tangible personal property, notwithstanding the fact that it is an inherently permanent structure. See Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 463 (1986); Weirick v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 446, 451-452 (1974);Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011