T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-171
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
COURTNEY A. BROWN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 24080-07S. Filed November 23, 2009.
Courtney A. Brown, pro se.
L. Katrine Shelton, for respondent.
GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the
provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect
when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
-2-
this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case.
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal
income taxes and penalties as follows:
Penalty
Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a)
2004 $29,263 $5,852.60
2005 6,172 1,234.40
After concessions by both parties, the sole issue remaining
for decision is whether equipment petitioner purchased in 2002
and 2003 was placed in service in 2004.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are incorporated
herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in California when
he filed his petition.
During 2002 petitioner was employed full time as an
electrical engineer, designing audio equipment such as
synthesizers, audio mixers, recording studio consoles, and
multimedia processors for computers. Petitioner, however,
desired to go into business for himself and also operated a
studio recording business. He operated this business as a sole
proprietorship until it was organized in 2003 as Best of Cabaret,
L.L.C. (Best of Cabaret), a single-member limited liability
company treated as a disregarded entity for Federal tax purposes.
-3-
During 2004 petitioner no longer worked as an electrical engineer
and operated his studio recording business on a full-time basis.
Petitioner purchased computer and musical equipment (the
equipment) for his business in 2002, 2003, and 2004. He tested
some of the equipment before 2004 to gain familiarity with it,
but the equipment was not fully functional until it was
interconnected in 2004. The equipment was not used in
petitioner’s business until 2004, and petitioner considered the
equipment as placed in service during 2004. Petitioner claimed a
section 179 deduction on his 2004 return and computed his
depreciation deductions for 2004 and 2005 accordingly. His
depreciation and section 179 deductions totaled $22,832 in 2004
and $22,275 in 2005.
On July 17, 2007, respondent sent petitioner a notice of
deficiency determining, inter alia, that the equipment purchased
in 2002 and 2003 was not placed in service in 2004. Respondent
therefore disallowed the section 179 deduction and recomputed
petitioner’s depreciation. On the basis of these recalculations,
petitioner’s claimed depreciation and section 179 deductions were
disallowed in the amounts of $3,417 in 2004 and $14,505.48 in
2005.
On October 19, 2007, petitioner filed a timely petition
challenging respondent’s determinations. The parties have
resolved by agreement all issues except whether petitioner’s
-4-
equipment purchased in 2002 and 2003 was placed in service
during 2004.
Discussion
Section 167 provides for a depreciation deduction for the
exhaustion, wear and tear, or obsolescence of property used in a
trade or business. For tangible property, the deduction is
computed by reference to the applicable depreciation method,
recovery period, and convention. Sec. 168(a). The period of
depreciation begins when the asset is placed in service. Sec.
1.167(a)-10(b), Income Tax Regs.
In addition, section 179 allows a taxpayer to elect to
deduct as a current expense, within certain dollar limitations,
the cost of section 179 property in the year such property is
placed in service. Sec. 179(a) and (b). In order to qualify as
section 179 property, it must, inter alia, be acquired by
purchase for use in the active conduct of a trade or business.
Sec. 179(d)(1). For purposes of section 179, “trade or business”
has the same meaning as in section 162 and the regulations
thereunder, and therefore property held merely for the production
of income or used in an activity not engaged in for profit does
not qualify as section 179 property. Sec. 1.179-2(c)(6)(i),
Income Tax Regs.
“Placed in service” means the time that property is first
placed by the taxpayer in a condition or state of readiness and
-5-
availability for a specifically assigned function, whether for
use in a trade or business, for the production of income, in a
tax-exempt activity, or in a personal activity. Secs.
1.167(a)-11(e)(1)(i), 1.179-4(e), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner purchased the equipment from 2002 to 2004 for use
in his studio recording business. Petitioner contends that the
equipment was not used until 2004 and was therefore placed in
service that year.
Respondent contends the equipment was placed in service in
2002 and 2003 because petitioner tested some pieces of equipment
before 2004. Respondent argues that the equipment was thus ready
and available for its specifically assigned function at that
time. We agree with petitioner.
Individual components are treated as a single property for
tax purposes when they are functionally interdependent.
Armstrong World Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, 974 F.2d 422, 430
(3d Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-326; FPL Group, Inc. &
Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-208. Regardless of the
amount of testing petitioner performed on each individual
component, the equipment was not capable of performing its
assigned function until interconnected and capable of supporting
the operation of the studio. Each piece of equipment was thus
essential to the operation of the studio as a whole and was not
useful or able to be used to operate a business by itself. See
-6-
Consumers Power Co. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 710 (1987)
(reservoir was an inseparable part of a hydroelectric plant);
Siskiyou Commcns., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-429
(DMS-10 switch and toll carriers were part of an integrated
telephone system).
Accordingly, we hold that the equipment petitioner
purchased in 2002 and 2003 was placed in service in 2004 and that
petitioner is entitled to the depreciation and section 179
deductions claimed on his 2004 and 2005 returns.
We have considered all of the parties’ contentions,
arguments, requests, and statements. To the extent not discussed
herein, we conclude that they are irrelevant, moot, or without
merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.