- 84 -
Circuit might have reached a similar conclusion even without the
taxpayer’s concession to the Government’s assumption. We attach
little significance to the language to which petitioner directs our
attention. Walgreen Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, does not
support petitioner’s argument.
JFM, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, is also inapposite.
In that case, among other things, we had to determine the
classification under Rev. Proc. 87-56 of gasoline pump canopies and
related assets. We determined that class 57.0 (and 57.1)
specifically included gasoline pump canopies. We rejected the
Commissioner’s attempt to classify the assets under the broad
definition of “Land Improvements” in class 00.3, on the basis that
such class was a “catchall” provision, which specifically excluded
assets “explicitly included” in other classes. Petitioner draws our
attention to the following statement in JFM, Inc.: “It is clear
that classes 57.0 and 57.1 were intended to cover all possible types
of real or personal property used in marketing petroleum products”.
We made that statement in the context of rejecting the
Commissioner’s class 00.3 classification, which excludes assets
described in other classes, and we do not read that statement as
establishing any priority between class 57.0 and 00.11.
Petitioner also relies on Rev. Rul. 95-52, 1995-2 C.B. 27,
arguing that it shows that the recovery period of furniture can be 5
years because, under the circumstances in the ruling, furniture is
included in class 57.0. It is true that, in the ruling, the
Commissioner held that some furniture is in class 57.0. The
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011