- 19 -
(a) The installation of trellising is labor intensive, and,
likewise, the removal of the trellising would be labor intensive
if the components were being salvaged for future use. Clearly,
the poles and likely the stakes could be easily salvaged for
reuse. The wire and related materials and hardware, however,
would be more difficult and time consuming to salvage for reuse.
If one merely wished to remove the wire, posts, and related
materials, but not for reuse, it could be accomplished quickly
with large equipment. In these situations, the wood, wire, vines,
etc. are piled in the field and burned with the metal parts
(including the wire) remaining after the fire. The resulting
salvaged materials would not be suitable for reuse.
3(...continued)
1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1983) (a variety of factors is
considered, including, where possible, the function and
design of the component in issue, the intent of the
taxpayer in installing the component, and the effect of
removal of the component on the building), affg. in
part and revg. in part 74 T.C. 768 (1980); Everhart v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 328, 331 (1973) (moveability per
se does not determine whether or not property is
personal property); Dixie Manor, Inc. v. United States,
44 AFTR 2d 79-5442, 79-2 USTC par. 9469 (W.D. Ky. 1979)
(fact that walls often are removed because of a change
in design by itself is not sufficient), affd. without
published opinion 652 F.2d 57 (6th Cir. 1981). The fact
that an item is not readily reusable in another
location is evidence supporting the conclusion that it
is to be treated as permanent in its present location.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Commissioner, 778 F.2d 402, 403
(8th Cir. 1985), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1984-532.
Id. at 57-58.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007