- 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 roofPage: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011