- 11 - the meaning of the exclusion of section 1245(a)(3)(B).5 We agree with respondent. The term "building" as used in section 48, and therefore as applicable to our discussion, "has caused much consternation among taxpayers and has produced a correspondingly large amount of litigation." See Scott Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 137, 177 (1980). As a result, the term "building" has become a term of art. See id. In this regard, it has long been established that used in the context of section 48, Congress intended that the term "building" be given its "commonly accepted meaning, that is, a structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls, and usually covered by a roof." H. Rept. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), 1962-3 C.B. 405, 516; S. Rept. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), 1962-3 C.B. 707, 858-859; see, e.g., Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. United States, 538 F.2d 790, 795-796 (8th Cir. 1976); Munford, Inc. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 463 (1986), affd. 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988); Samis v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 609, 617 (1981); Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1059, 1072 (1980); Satrum v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 413, 416 (1974). 5 In the alternative, respondent argues that the Tobacco Barn does not meet a number of the other requirements of sec. 1245(a)(3)(B)(i), (iii). However, because we agree with respondent that the Tobacco Barn is a "building", we need not consider these alternative arguments.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011