- 25 -
Respondent’s best argument is the fact that the trellising
is intended to last as long as the grapevines, which have an
expected life of approximately 25 years. Respondent also makes
the point that it may not be economically practicable to remove
the trellising. Petitioners’ best arguments are that
irrespective of the economics, they have dismantled, moved,
stored, and/or reused trellising, and it is not permanently
affixed to the ground.
Respondent also attempts to convince us that a trellis is
“not machinery in the ordinary sense of the word.” Perhaps
respondent expects us to see generically a complex machine, such
as a tractor with an internal combustion engine, when we think of
the concept of a “machine”. A “machine”, however, may be a
simple lever. The posts and stakes used by petitioners, in
combination with the wires, constitute a machine that is
adjusted, modified, and changed in order to train grapevines to
produce high-quality grapes for the production of wine. We
therefore reject respondent’s argument that a trellis is not a
machine within the meaning of the statutes and revenue procedures
we consider.
As to the Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra,
factors as applied to trellising, three favored petitioners, one
favored respondent, and two were neutral. In that regard, we
consider the Whiteco factors and the assets classifications to
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007