Kenneth G. Schladweiler - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          That description of the standard is consistent with that                    
          articulated by the Board of Tax Appeals in Estate of Manierre v.            
          Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 103, 106 (1926):                                     
               A repair is an expenditure for the purpose of keeping                  
               the property in an ordinarily efficient operating                      
               condition.  It does not add to the value of the                        
               property, nor does it appreciably prolong its life.  It                
               merely keeps the property in an operating condition                    
               over its probable useful life for the uses for which it                
               was acquired.  Expenditures for that purpose are                       
               distinguishable from those for replacements,                           
               alterations, improvements or additions which prolong                   
               the life of the property, increase its value, or make                  
               it adaptable to a different use. * * *                                 
               There is no dispute in this case that the expenditures in              
          question were necessitated by an accident that occurred in August           
          1994.  One of petitioner’s drivers was driving petitioner’s truck           
          when it jackknifed and slid into a ditch causing substantial                
          damage to the truck.  Petitioner, appearing pro se, testified at            
          trial, in response to a question from the Court, that the                   
          expenditures were “to get [the truck] * * * to its original shape           
          before it was rolled.”  Petitioner further testified that he                
          consulted with his return preparer about the expenditure and was            
          informed that “as long as * * * [the truck] wasn’t better than it           
          was, just put * * * [the truck] back so it was in workable                  
          shape”, the expenditure was deductible.  Respondent offered no              
          evidence to refute petitioner’s testimony, which we found to be             

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011