- 19 -
Commissioner, 108 T.C. 265, 280 (1977) (quoting Wolfsen Land &
Cattle Co. v. Commissioner, supra).
Petitioner cited several cases to support his argument that
the nature of the work on the roof was repairs, including
Vanalco, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-265, Pierce
Estates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 1020 (1951), Thurner v.
Commissioner, 11 T.C.M.(CCH) 42 (1952), Pontel Family Estate v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-303, and Rev. Rul. 2001-4. In each
of these cases and in the revenue ruling, the Court held that
certain work performed should be characterized as repairs and
deducted rather than capitalized. These situations are
distinguishable from the instant case because they involved
instances in which the repairs were of a recurring nature, part
of a regular maintenance program, or necessary due to storm
damage. None of the situations in the cited cases or revenue
ruling is applicable in the instant case–-petitioner did not
offer evidence that he performed work on his roof on a recurring
basis or that the work was to repair damage caused by a storm.
Therefore, we find the cases and revenue ruling cited by
petitioner distinguishable from the instant case.
Petitioner presented an expert witness, Robert Cox, who
testified that the entire roof was not replaced, that many
components were reused, and that the work was of poor quality so
that it did not prolong the life of the roof nor materially add
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011