Nevia Campbell - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
          471 (1967).  In that case, the Court held that the cost of                  
          removing and replacing roof-covering material (as well as the               
          cost of inserting an expansion joint in the roof) was a                     
          deductible expense.  The Court observed that “it is necessary to            
          take into consideration the purpose for which an expenditure is             
          made in order to determine whether such expenditure is capital in           
          nature or constitutes a current expense.”  Oberman Manufacturing            
          Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 482.  The Court in Oberman                    
          Manufacturing Co. observed that the taxpayer’s only purpose was             
          to prevent leakage and keep the leased property in an operating             
          condition over its probable useful life and not to prolong the              
          life of the property, increase its value, or make it adaptable to           
          another use.  There was no replacement or substitution of the               
          roof.  Petitioner’s only purpose in having the work done to the             
          roof was to prevent the leakage and keep her rental house in                
          operating condition and not to prolong the life of the property,            
          increase its value, or make it adaptable to another use.  As in             
          Oberman Manufacturing Co., there was no replacement or                      
          substitution of the roof.  Petitioner’s expenditure merely                  
          restored her rental house to one with a roof free of leaks.  On             













Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011