- 26 -
mainly distinguish between those things that are permanently
affixed to the real estate and those that are not. From that
perspective, we hold that trellising is not a permanent
improvement to the real property, and, accordingly, petitioners
properly classified it in the 10-year class.
The drip irrigation systems, unlike the trellising, are, to
a great extent, buried in the ground. Parts of it may be
repaired and maintained like the trellises, but a substantial
portion of it is under the ground and will remain there until the
vines die or are removed for some other reason. This Court has
already decided that grapevines are not “tangible personal
property” for purposes of section 179. See Kimmelman v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 294, 308 (1979), where the Court held that
“the grapevines are an ‘inherently permanent structure’ within
the meaning of section 1.179-3(b), Income Tax Regs., and
therefore, the grapevines are not tangible personal property.”5
In reaching the holding in Kimmelman, the Court noted that “Most
of the vines involved * * * were planted at or around the turn of
the century, and none of these vines has been moved since then”.
Kimmelman v. Commissioner, supra at 308. To a great extent, the
underground piping is inextricably connected with the life of the
vines.
5 We note that trellising was shown to have been adjusted,
moved, or reused without moving or uprooting the vines, whereas
there was no such showing with respect to irrigation systems.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007