- 34 -
which to conclude that the damage would be significant or that
the tank would no longer be usable. To the contrary, if the
procedures in API Standard 653 are properly followed, the
reconstructed tank will have an “acceptable appearance and
structural integrity”. In addition, during the years in issue,
and after CITGO relocated Vicksburg tank No. 2 using this method,
Vicksburg tank No. 2 remained in service. This factor favors
petitioner.
F. What Is the Manner of Affixation of the Property to the Land?
Petitioner asserts that the tanks are not fastened, tied, or
otherwise attached to the land. According to petitioner, most of
CITGO’s tanks at issue merely rest on top of “native soil”, and
the remainder sit on concrete ringwall foundations, which
foundations are not damaged when the tanks are moved. Respondent
counters that the tanks’ sheer weight and size affix them to the
land.
In Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 666-667,
the outdoor advertising signs’ poles were driven 5 to 10 feet
into the ground and were cemented in place by concrete rings.
Even so, because the poles could “easily be removed from the
ground”, and were removed in practice, we concluded that the
poles’ manner of affixation to the land did not reflect
permanence. Id. at 673.
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