- 16 -
process. Thus, the Tobacco Barn provided working space that was
more than merely incidental to the function of the structure as a
curing facility.
Petitioners rely heavily on Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
v. United States, supra. Petitioners' reliance on this case is
misplaced. In Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States,
369 F. Supp. at 1287, the District Court specifically relied on
the fact that the tobacco shed did not provide "working space"
other than "bringing in and out of the tobacco hogsheads and
their placement in the racks created for them and their removal
therefrom" to hold that the tobacco shed in issue did not
constitute a "building". The District Court indicated that the
work involved in lifting tobacco hogsheads to storage racks was
ancillary to the function of the structure as a storage facility.
Obviously, petitioners' case is distinguishable from Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, supra, in that the
Tobacco Barn provided frequent and regular "work space" in the
context of petitioners' tobacco manufacturing business.
In a number of cases, this Court has considered a discrete
area of a larger structure to be "a structure other than a
building", while holding other discrete areas of the same
structure to be a "building". See, e.g., Munford Inc. v.
Commission er, 87 T.C. at 481 (each of three distinct areas, a
truck loading platform, a rail-loading platform and a
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011