Thomas J. Northen , Jr., and Shirley Cox - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          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.  Id.               
          There was no replacement or substitution of the roof.  Id.                  
               Here, as in Oberman Manufacturing Co., 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 commercial property in operating condition             
          and not to prolong the life of the property, increase its value,            
          or make it adaptable to another use.  Petitioner’s expenditure              
          merely restored her commercial property to one with a roof free             
          of leaks.  That is why she hired Armstrong and the other                    
          contractors.  The reason why Armstrong sprayed the entire roof              
          with foam was to protect Armstrong against future liability.  On            
          this record, we hold that petitioner is entitled to deduct the              
          expenditure in issue.                                                       
               Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case               
          Division.                                                                   
                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             under Rule 155.                          












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  

Last modified: May 25, 2011