McGrath v. CIR

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 9, 2003
• Docket: 03-60273
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 9, 2003

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III ____________________ Clerk

No. 03-60273 Summary Calendar ____________________

MICHAEL A. MCGRATH; FRANCES Y. MCGRATH,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States Tax Court (126-99) _________________________________________________________________

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioners challenge, pro se, the Tax Court decision that

certain expenses, characterized as capital improvements, were not

wholly deductible in 1995. That year, pursuant to leasing

commercial space, Petitioners were required by the lease to make

substantial and quite fundamental permanent improvements to the

leasehold in order to, inter alia, be able to occupy it. The

improvements, completed in 1995, cost more than $111,000.

Concomitantly, the lease called for Petitioners to receive a six-

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. month rent reduction, valued at approximately $18,000. Petitioners

deducted the entire cost of the improvements on their 1995 tax

return. The lease was terminated in 1997.

The IRS agrees that the portion of the expenses corresponding

to the rent reduction was deductible in 1995. At issue is whether

the remaining $92,000 was deductible then, or whether Petitioners

could only take depreciation deductions until the lease’s

termination in 1997.

Generally, lessees must depreciate improvements they make to

the leasehold. See 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.162-11(b) and 1.167(a)-4.

Petitioners contend, however, the improvements were deductible as

other payments required to be made as a condition to the continued use or possession, for purposes of the trade or business, of property to which the taxpayer has not taken or is not taking title or in which he has no equity.

I.R.C. § 162(a)(3) (emphasis added).

We review such contentions de novo. E.g., Byram v. United

States, 705 F.2d 1418, 1421-23 (5th Cir. 1983). “Other payments”

do not include capital improvements a lessee makes to a lessor’s

property. Duffy v. Central R.R. Co., 268 U.S. 55, 64 (1925);

McGrath v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 84 T.C.M. (CCH) 310 (2002).

DENIED