- 19 -
flown the airplane at any time after its completion in early
1997. In connection with that argument, the following testimony
was offered at trial:
COURT: * * * So then from what you're telling me, while
this process [the flutter analysis] was underway, the
FAA probably would not have allowed you to fly that
plane.
PETITIONER: Oh, actually, they would have, Your Honor.
A flutter analysis is not required on an aircraft.
COURT: Well, then why were you having it done?
PETITIONER: Because I am cautious. I don't want to
kill myself in an airplane that comes apart due to
flutter. * * *
The Court is satisfied that the Mach Buster was not ready and
available for its specifically assigned function, i.e., air
racing, until at least February 1998, when petitioner became
satisfied by the flutter analysis results that the aircraft was
airworthy.6 Thus, the Court finds that the Mach Buster airplane
was not placed in service during the years at issue. Therefore,
petitioners are not entitled to depreciation deductions on the
Mach Buster for any of the years at issue.
The final issue for decision is whether, for 1996,
respondent properly disallowed $8,737 of petitioners' claimed
6 The Court finds it also notable, although not
determinative, that petitioner attempted to enter the Mach Buster
in the National Championship Air Races at Reno, Nevada, for Sept.
1999; however, the Reno Air Race Association rejected the entry
because the Mach Buster had not been previously demonstrated on
the race course.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011