- 13 - 311 (1968). Thus the functional test is described as one that inquires (1) Whether the purpose of the structure at issue is a purpose "ejusdem generis" to the purposes described by example in section 1.48-1(e)(1), Income Tax Regs., and (2) whether the structure performs a function similar to those structures enumerated in section 1.48-1(e)(1), Income Tax Regs., as buildings; i.e., apartment houses, factory and office buildings, warehouses, barns, garages, railway or bus stations, and stores. See Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 768, 795 (1980), affd. in part and revd. in part on another issue 708 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1983). Thus, the Court must consider whether the structure functions like a building; i.e., does it "'provide shelter * * * or furnish working * * * space, or exist for another purpose that could be listed with the enumerated purposes without violating the constraining rules of ejusdem generis.'" See Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. Commissioner, 708 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1983), affg. in part and revg. in part on another issue 74 T.C. 768 (1980). In applying the functional test, one of the major focuses of inquiry is whether the structure provides working space for employees that is more than merely incidental to the primary function of the structure. See, e.g., Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. United States, 205 Ct. C1. 402, 418, 499 F.2d 1263, 1271Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011