- 22 -
Petitioner has demonstrated that the tanks are capable of
being moved and have in fact been moved. Consequently, this
factor favors petitioner.
B. Is the Property Designed or Constructed To Remain Permanently
in Place?
Petitioner contends that the tanks’ design and construction
demonstrate that the tanks are not to remain permanently in
place. According to petitioner, CITGO designed and constructed
the tanks in conformity with industry standards, which enables
CITGO to dismantle the tanks and reconstruct them at new sites
pursuant to API Standard 653 or relocate them intact with the
Watson Air Bag technology.18
In contrast, respondent contends that the tanks were not
designed to be moved to new locations but, instead, were designed
to remain in place for their entire economic useful lives.
Comparing the tanks to the property at issue in cases such as
Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 664 (1975) (outdoor
advertising signs); JFM, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra
(gasoline canopies); and Fox Photo, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-348 (1-hour photo labs), respondent asserts that the
tanks are significantly different for the following reasons: (1)
18Petitioner attached to its posttrial brief a document
purportedly describing European tank-moving standards.
Petitioner did not submit this document at trial. Consequently,
the document is not part of the record, and we disregard it. See
Rule 143(b); Lombard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-154 n.3,
affd. without published opinion 57 F.3d 1066 (4th Cir. 1995).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011