- 36 -
storage tanks had not been moved for at least 24 years. We
applied Whiteco and held that the storage tanks were inherently
permanent structures. With respect to the sixth Whiteco factor,
we concluded that the storage tanks’ sheer weight and girth
affixed them to the piers, and we analyzed the storage tanks and
the piers as “integrated units”. In a footnote, we explained our
decision to treat the storage tanks and piers as one unit as
follows: (1) There was never an intention to move the storage
tanks; (2) the storage tanks had never been moved; and (3) moving
the storage tanks could be done only with great expense and
difficulty. Siler v. Commissioner, supra.
Although Siler also involved petroleum product storage
tanks, the facts of Siler are distinguishable from those of the
present case. CITGO’s tanks are vertical, whereas the storage
tanks in Siler were cradled horizontally. Most importantly, the
reasons we gave in Siler for treating the storage tanks and piers
as one unit are not applicable to the present case: CITGO cannot
realistically expect the tanks to remain permanently in place;
CITGO has moved tanks in the past; and CITGO can move tanks
without relatively great expense or difficulty when the cost of
relocating tanks is compared to the cost of constructing new
tanks. See supra pp. 8-9, 15-16.
We agree that CITGO’s tanks have substantial weight, but the
tanks are not affixed to their foundations in any manner that
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