- 17 -
refrigerated area were considered separately under the functional
test); Central Citrus Co. v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 365 (1972)
(sweet rooms of permanent construction that were closed off from
the remainder of the plant by a floor-to-ceiling wall were
considered separately); Catron v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 306
(1968) (cold-storage room sealed off from rest of structure by a
floor-to-ceiling wall was considered separately).
Petitioners' case, however, is factually distinguishable
from the above-mentioned cases because the stripping area in the
Tobacco Barn is not a distinct, nor permanent, structure. During
good weather, the area is not partitioned by any material. In
cold weather, petitioners put up a temporary "room" by hanging
plastic sheeting and plywood to wood beams providing structural
support for the Tobacco Barn. Under these circumstance, the
stripping area cannot be considered distinct from the rest of the
Tobacco Barn, and the work performed in that area must be
considered work performed in the Tobacco Barn.
Based on the foregoing, the Tobacco Barn is a "building" and
therefore is not section 1245 property within the meaning of
section 1245(a)(3)(B).
B. Section 1245(a)(3)(D)
Alternatively, petitioners contend that the Tobacco Barn is
a single purpose horticultural structure as defined in section
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011