Payless Cashways, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
               the property involved may still come under this rule;                  
               however, there cannot be substantial modification in                   
               the plan if the equipped building rule is to apply.                    
               The plan referred to must be a definite and specific                   
               plan of the taxpayer that is available in written form                 
               as evidence of the taxpayer’s intentions.                              
                    The equipped building rule can be illustrated by                  
               an example where the taxpayer has a plan providing for                 
               the construction of a $100,000 building  * * * [H.                     
               Conf. Rept. 99-841, supra at II-56-57, 1986-3 C.B.                     
               (Vol. 4) at 56-57; emphasis added.]                                    
               Based on the legislative history provided in the conference            
          report, we think it a fair inference that Congress intended that            
          the taxpayer claiming the credit would be the party required to             
          have the relevant plan, as evidence of its intention, and that              
          the taxpayer be the party that “incurred or committed” more than            
          50 percent of the adjusted basis of the building and the                    
          equipment to be used in it.10  We therefore hold that the                   
          taxpayer claiming the credit under the exception contained in TRA           
          section 203(b)(1)(C) must be the party who has the specific                 

               10Payless contends that TRA sec. 203(b)(1)(C)                          
               was designed to protect those taxpayers who, although                  
               having committed to incur or having incurred                           
               substantial costs toward furnishing and equipping a                    
               building in a large scale project by the end of 1985,                  
               did not have all the items to be included in the                       
               completed facility reduced to a timely binding                         
          In Payless’ view, a group of taxpayers could be amalgamated so              
          that as an aggregate they would achieve the required commitment.            
          Payless suggests no measure for what constitutes a “substantial             
          commitment”.  Additionally, petitioners’ proposed interpretation            
          of the section, by logical extension, would allow the section to            
          be read so that a taxpayer who had committed a very minor part of           
          the total construction and equipping costs could claim an                   
          investment tax credit if other taxpayers had committed more than            
          half the costs of the equipped building by the cutoff date.                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011