- 20 -
Petitioners point out that petitioner filed a certificate of
assumed name for “TGR” without including Burnett’s name and
contend that this shows that Burnett and petitioner were not
partners in TGR II. We disagree. This fact is not enough to
convince us that petitioner and Burnett did not use condemnation
proceeds to pay for an interest in the partnership known as TGR
II which in turn bought and owned the Warfield Drive property.
Also, the assumed name certificate does not affect TGR II because
petitioner and Burnett created the TGR II partnership after
petitioner filed the assumed name certificate.
We conclude that petitioners acquired an interest in TGR II
and that the Warfield Drive property was an asset of TGR II, not
an asset owned as tenants in common by the joint venturers.
Thus, the Warfield Drive property does not qualify as replacement
property for the Hoefgen Avenue property under section 1033.
D. Whether the Placed-In-Service Date for a Vehicle Is the Date
Acquired or the Date Used in Business
The parties disagree about when petitioner placed five
vehicles in service for depreciation purposes. Petitioners
contend that the placed-in-service date for each vehicle is the
date petitioner began using the vehicle in his business. We
disagree.
Generally, an asset is placed in service for depreciation
purposes when it is acquired and available for use in business
even if it is not actually used in the business. See Sears Oil
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011