Dennis v. Commissioner

1993 T.C. Memo. 345, 66 T.C.M. 319, 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 348
United States Tax Court·Decided August 5, 1993·No. Docket No. 3721-92·Unpublished

Opinion

J. FRANKLIN DENNIS AND BEVERLY A. DENNIS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Dennis v. Commissioner
Docket No. 3721-92
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1993-345; 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 348; 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 319;
August 5, 1993, Filed

*348 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

For petitioners: Bobby G. Wombles.
For respondent: Jennifer Troutman.
PATE

PATE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PATE, Special Trial Judge: This case was assigned pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. 1

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1988 Federal income taxes of $ 5,571 and additions to tax of $ 325. After concessions, the sole issue for our decision is whether petitioners are entitled to an investment tax credit on rehabilitation expenditures (hereinafter rehabilitation credit) for improvements made to a certified historic structure.

This case was submitted to the Court fully stipulated. Petitioners resided in New Albany, Indiana, at the time they filed their petition. On August 17, 1989, J. Franklin Dennis and Beverly A. Dennis (hereinafter petitioner) *349 timely filed (after taking into account certain extensions of time to file) a joint income tax return for 1988.

In November 1987, petitioner purchased, for $ 31,294, a building known as the Levi Ferry-Sue Green Home (hereinafter the Levi Home) in New Albany, Indiana. The Levi Home was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It had been operated as a Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Center prior to its purchase by petitioner.

Petitioner began renovating the Levi Home immediately after she purchased it. However, she never had any plans prepared detailing the renovation, nor did she set any date on which she expected to complete the renovation. During 1987 and 1988, she expended $ 72,250 in renovation costs.

In November 1988, petitioner began using one-half of the first floor as her residence. It was not until 1990 that she first received rental income from the Levi Home, and it totaled $ 3,890. In this connection, the parties have stipulated that petitioner first placed the Levi Home in service sometime after December 31, 1988.

Petitioner included with her 1988 income tax return a Form 3468, on which she claimed a rehabilitation credit of $ 14,481 ($ 72,405 *350 x 20%). She attached to the form a copy of a "Historic Preservation Certification Application Request for Certification of Completed Work" (hereinafter application), signed by petitioner and dated August 14, 1989. In the application, she represented that the Levi Home was a certified historic structure (listed in the National Register on May 5, 1983), and stated that the rehabilitation work had not yet been completed. Nowhere did the application indicate that it had been received by the United States Department of Interior. Moreover, at the time this case was submitted for our decision, petitioner had not received a final certification of rehabilitation.

Respondent maintains that petitioner is not entitled to the rehabilitation credit because she did not meet the requirements of sections 38, 46, and 48. She argues a number of grounds, including that: (1) The Levi Home was not the type of property which qualified for the rehabilitation credit, (2) petitioners never obtained certification for the improvements from the Secretary of the Interior, (3) the Levi Home was not placed in service in 1988, (4) petitioner failed to properly elect the "qualified progress expenditure" credit, *351 and (5) the amount of credit claimed was greater than the amount allowable.

On the other hand, petitioner contends that she is entitled to the rehabilitation credit she claimed for 1988 because (1) the information she submitted on the Form 3468, which she filed with her 1988 income tax return, was sufficient to constitute a proper election of the "qualified progress expenditure" credit, and (2) she complied with the instructions in Internal Revenue Service Publication 572.

In general, a rehabilitation credit in the amount of 20 percent of "qualified rehabilitation expenditures" is allowable when the taxpayer rehabilitates a building which is a "certified historic structure". Secs. 38, 46(a) and (b)(4)(ii). A certified historic structure includes any building which is listed in the National Register. Sec. 48(g)(3)(A). A qualified rehabilitation expenditure is an expenditure: (1) Made to rehabilitate a "qualified rehabilitated building"; (2) which is properly chargeable to a capital account; (3) for property on which depreciation is available; and (4) which is either nonresidential real property, residential rental property, real property which has a class life of more than 12.5*352 years, or an addition or improvement to property described above. Sec. 48(g)(2)(A). A qualified rehabilitated building is defined as any building if: (i) such building has been substantially rehabilitated, and (ii) such building was placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. Sec. 48(g)(1); see Alexander v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 244, 247 (1991), affd. without published opinion 968 F.2d 12 (3d Cir. 1992). A qualified rehabilitated building is considered new section 38 property. Sec. 48(g)(4); sec. 1.46-5(e), Income Tax Regs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dennis v. Commissioner, 1993 T.C. Memo. 345, 66 T.C.M. 319, 1993 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 348 (tax 1993).

1993 T.C. Memo. 345 (Dennis v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alexander v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Noyce v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 46 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)