- 31 -
costs of the gate must be capitalized because they constitute a
"major repair or replacement."
Regardless of whether the gate is viewed as separate from or
integral to the fence, we believe the substantial nature of the
replacement renders it a capital expenditure. Furthermore, the
new gate did improve the property as it freed up the area that
formerly was necessary for the path of the old swing gate. Poles
were added to the existing fence to support the new gate. Cf.
Honigman v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 1067, 1081 (1971), affd. in
part, revd. in part and remanded on other grounds 466 F.2d 69
(6th Cir. 1972) (replacing concrete floor section was a capital
expense where structural supports were added). Considering all
the facts and circumstances, we hold that the expense of
replacing the gate is capital in nature.
We next consider the $3,400 deduction claimed by Lakeview
with respect to work done on its roof. The roof was removed
"right down to the wood" and then replaced, along with the
addition of a new roof drain.
Petitioner relies on Oberman Manufacturing Co. v.
Commissioner, 47 T.C. 471, 482 (1967), where the removal of the
material covering the roof, the insertion of an expansion joint,
and the recovering of the roof with new material was held to be
currently deductible since it merely kept the leased property in
an operating condition over its probable useful life. In Oberman
Manufacturing Co., steel plates that were the basic foundation of
the roof were not replaced. By contrast, Lakeview's entire roof
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011