- 15 -
dispositive. See Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S.
282, 294-295 (1938); Estate of Cloutier v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-49. They both based their opinions on personal
observations which were made at least 3 years after the last year
in issue, and subsequent modifications may have altered the
building's features.5 Both experts also made key concessions on
cross-examination.
Certain features of the Ashland Building indicate that the
building was not constructed for the benefit of GRC, but was
instead constructed for purposes that are personal to
petitioners. The first floor has no bathrooms, and one must exit
the building to use the restroom facilities on the third floor.
Petitioners have failed to show how this design adequately
accommodates industrial workers who must have ready access to
wash basins and restroom facilities. The third floor contains a
balcony, a wine storage facility, and four bedrooms with four
bathrooms (each equipped with its own bathtub). Among other
things, we conclude that there was no business purpose to be
served from the installation of a wine storage facility.
Mr. Spera also conceded at trial that petitioners have resided in
5 GRC's current use of the Ashland Building for its melting
operation does show that the building was indeed adaptable for
use as a refinery. It does not demonstrate that the parties
intended to use it as such. Our inquiry focuses on petitioners'
intent and use during the years in issue, and later modifications
which adapt the building's use are not persuasive.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011