- 33 -
When we applied this factor in JFM, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, supra, we concluded that occasional damage to the
gasoline canopies’ side panels upon removal was acceptable
because “most of the components [were] reusable.” In Film N’
Photos, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-162, we were
satisfied that the removal of photo merchandising units and their
bases did not cause “significant damage” to the units or to the
parking lots on which the units were situated. Additionally, in
Fox Photo, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, damage sustained upon the
removal of the 1-hour photo labs was permissible because it was
“cheaper to repair than building a new lab.” See also Scott
Paper Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 172 (primary electric
components remained “intact and reusable” after their removal).
Acknowledging that the tanks sustain only minimal damage
when moved intact, respondent’s arguments with respect to this
Whiteco factor focus on the dismantling and reconstruction method
described in API Standard 653. According to respondent, because
the steel may not return to its original shape once the tanks are
reconstructed, the tanks sustain damage when they are cut up and
moved any distance. Respondent also relies on Mr. Watson’s
opinion that a reconstructed tank never looks the same and,
therefore, is an inferior product.
Even if dismantling and reconstructing a tank may somewhat
distort the tank’s shape, the record contains no evidence from
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011