- 14 -
particular asset was a land improvement (i.e., permanent).
Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 664 (1975). In
Whiteco Indus., Inc., the Court analyzed existing caselaw and
derived six factors that had been used in other cases to determine
whether an asset is an improvement to real property. Id. at 672-
673. The Court in Whiteco decided whether advertising signs
(outdoor billboards) constitute "tangible personal property"
within the meaning of section 48(a)(1)(A), and therefore, may
qualify for the investment credit provided in section 38.2 The
statute, definitions, and concepts in Whiteco are sufficiently
similar to the ones we consider so that we find it appropriate to
use those guidelines to assist the Court in this case. Although
there are six tests, they overlap each other, but their primary
focus is the question of the permanence of depreciable property
and the damage caused to it or to realty upon removal of the
depreciable property. No one factor has been considered to be
determinative, and the guidelines have been used merely as an aid
to deciding whether a particular property is or is not a permanent
improvement to real property.
2 Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 664 (1975)
involved the taxable years 1967 through 1971 and, accordingly,
was construing secs. 38 and 48(a)(1)(A), as in effect for those
years.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007