Close
Close

Tax Court considers methods for allocating purchase price between land and improvements

RFP
Tax Hot Topics: Tax Court considers methods for allocating purchase price between land and improvementsIn Nielsen v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2017-31 (May 8, 2017), the Tax Court held that the IRS was allowed to rely on the local county assessor’s allocation of value between land and building improvements for depreciation purposes.

The taxpayers owned rental real estate properties and acquired two of the rental properties in 2003 and one in 2011. The taxpayers claimed depreciation deductions with respect to the rental properties by including both the cost of the building improvements and the land. The IRS disallowed portions of the depreciation deductions on the grounds that the taxpayers had incorrectly included the cost of the nondepreciable land in their calculations of depreciable basis for the rental properties. Although the taxpayers agreed that the land should not have been depreciated, they disagreed with the manner in which the IRS allocated the original basis between land and building improvements.

The IRS relied upon the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor’s assessments to determine the allocations between the land and the improvements on the rental properties. The taxpayers raised various challenges to the accuracy and credibility of the IRS’s reliance on the county assessments and instead proposed two alternative methods of valuation: (1) land sales method and (2) insurance method. Additionally, the taxpayers had a professional appraisal performed on one of the rental properties in the year of acquisition. The county assessments the IRS relied on were from 2012 and 2013. As compared with the taxpayers’ professional appraisal, the county assessment allocated 4.4 % more to the taxpayers’ improvements than to the land.

The court found the allocations based on the county’s assessments more reliable and persuasive than the taxpayers’ methods.  The court noted that the professional appraisal and allocations obtained by the taxpayers on one of its properties supported the court’s finding.

Contact:
Sharon Kay
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 861 4140

Ellen Martin
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1558

Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.