- 20 -
Accordingly, with respect to the trellising, this factor works
both ways and is neutral, not favoring petitioners or respondent.
(b) Installation of a drip irrigation system is likewise
labor intensive, and, its removal would be time consuming if the
components were being salvaged for future use. Similarly, if the
drip irrigation system were removed by means of the ripping
process, the removal would be quick and inexpensive, but the pipe,
tubing, and related hardware would, to a great extent, be rendered
unusable in the removal process. Therefore, with respect to the
drip irrigation system, this factor works both ways and is
neutral, not favoring petitioners or respondent.
(c) The well would obviously not be readily removed from the
earth, and, accordingly, this factor favors respondent as to the
well. Evidence in this case reflected that when a well has served
its usefulness, its tangible components are disabled in place,
rather than removed from the ground.
5. The fifth factor concerns “How much damage will the
property sustain upon its removal?” Whiteco Indus., Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 673.
(a) As it relates to the trellising and drip irrigation
systems in this case, the fifth factor is the converse of the
fourth factor. If those components/systems were carefully
removed, the time consumption or cost would be great, and the
damage would be small. Conversely, if the components/systems are
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007