- 19 -
are "The commercial production of plants (including plant
products such as flowers, vegetables, or fruit) in a greenhouse"
or "the commercial production of mushrooms." Sec. 1.48-10(c)(2),
Income Tax Regs. (Emphasis added). It is clear that the Tobacco
Barn was not specifically designed and constructed for either of
these permissible purposes. The Tobacco Barn is not a greenhouse
in which plants or plant products such as flowers, vegetables or
fruits are commercially produced. See sec. 1.48-10(c)(2)(i),
Income Tax Regs. Neither is it a structure used in the
commercial production of mushrooms. See sec. 1.48-10(c)(2)(ii),
Income Tax Regs. The Tobacco Barn therefore does not meet the
specific design test.6
Second, a "horticultural structure" must be exclusively used
for (i.e., the "exclusive use test") the above-enumerated
purposes. See sec. 1.48-10(c)(1)(ii), Income Tax Regs. Under
6 Although not dispositive, we find petitioners'
characterization of the Tobacco Barn as a "barn" to be probative
in evaluating the function of the structure. Legislative history
and case law indicate that "general purpose agricultural
structures such as barns and other farm structures which can be
adapted to a variety of uses" do not constitute single purpose
horticultural structures. S. Rept. 95-1263 at 117 (1978), 1978-3
C.B. (Vol. 1) 315, 415; see Sherwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1988-544. Petitioners stored farm equipment in the Tobacco Barn.
Although not clear at what financial cost, the Tobacco Barn could
also be made foundationally stronger and could thereafter house
cattle. Thus, even though we do not base our holding on this
issue, these facts suggest that the Tobacco Barn could be adapted
to a variety of uses and therefore is a "general purpose"
structure.
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