Discussion:Depreciation of HVAC
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 14:12, 10 April 2008 RoyDaleOne (Talk | contribs) (Bjeter, I am sor) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 14:26, 10 April 2008 Tiredoftaxes (Talk | contribs) (Thank you all fo) Next diff → |
||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| Are you also saying, renting real property even one can not be a trade or business?}} | Are you also saying, renting real property even one can not be a trade or business?}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Tiredoftaxes|Date=10 April 2008|Text=Thank you all for your input on this matter. I really had never used this site before. Now I know where to go when I need some input on questions. It is amazing that there are so many different answers, but I had to go with what I thought in the first place, 27.5 or 39, even though it seems way too long.}} | ||
Revision as of 14:26, 10 April 2008
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Depreciation of HVAC
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Depreciation of HVAC
Tiredoftaxes (talk|edits) said: | 9 April 2008 |
| I have a client who owns a s-corp and they have a warehouse like building which they use for their offices. They made two separate purchases during the year. First they bought a furnace and later on they bought an airconditioner unit, not a window unit. My question is what depreciable life have you used for a furnace and for an airconditioner? | |
Tiredoftaxes (talk|edits) said: | 9 April 2008 |
| The furnace was replaced but there never was any airconditioning. | |
| 9 April 2008 | |
| The furnace and A/C are considered part of the building and will be depreciable over the appropriate life (27.5 or 39 yrs), unless it is special equipment to regulate a small environment within the building (such as a/c installed only to keep computer equipment in a consistent environment). You can try to get away with calling the furnace a repair, but to me that would depend on the cost of the furnace. | |
Tiredoftaxes (talk|edits) said: | 9 April 2008 |
| That is what I thought but it seemed silly that an a/c unit which probably only lasts 10-15 years would be part of the building. | |
| April 10, 2008 | |
| You never answered the question about the furnace. Was it broken? Makes a big diff. Broken means the new one is a repair. | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| Doesn't matter what the useful life of the asset is or would be. It's only what Congress and the courts say that matters. | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| You repair the original unit. If a new unit is purchased, then it is a capital asset with a 7 year life. | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| Not to split hair, but I saw many times as a 5 year asset. Why 7 years Dnc? | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| Nate,
Where in the world is any guidance for an a/c unit being 7yr property? | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| Here, I'll help out a little. This is Reg §1.48-1(e)(2):
The term “structural components” includes such parts of a building as walls, partitions, floors, and ceilings, as well as any permanent coverings therefor such as paneling or tiling; windows and doors; all components (whether in, on, or adjacent to the building) of a central air conditioning or heating system, including motors, compressors, pipes and ducts; plumbing and plumbing fixtures, such as sinks and bathtubs; electric wiring and lighting fixtures; chimneys; stairs, escalators, and elevators, including all components thereof; sprinkler systems; fire escapes; and other components relating to the operation or maintenance of a building. However, the term “structural components” does not include machinery the sole justification for the installation of which is the fact that such machinery is required to meet temperature or humidity requirements which are essential for the operation of other machinery or the processing of materials or foodstuffs. Machinery may meet the “sole justification” test provided by the preceding sentence even though it incidentally provides for the comfort of employees, or serves, to an insubstantial degree, areas where such temperature or humidity requirements are not essential. For example, an air conditioning and humidification system installed in a textile plant in order to maintain the temperature or humidity within a narrow optimum range which is critical in processing particular types of yarn or cloth is not included within the term “structural components”. For special rules with respect to an elevator or escalator, the construction, reconstruction, or erection of which is completed by the taxpayer after June 30, 1963, or which is acquired after June 30, 1963, and the original use of which commences with the taxpayer and commences after such date, see section 48(a)(1)(C) and paragraph (m) of this section.
| |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| Well, I suggest you see the HCA court case, etc., component depreciation is back, Reg 1.48.1 has been shredded, in my opinion.
Where is Section 179 not allowed for rental property which is not residential? | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| See this: | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=134671,00.html#3 | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| And maybe JR is tooting the right horn about the furnace: see Thomas J. Northen, Jr. et ux vs Comm, TC Summary Opinion 2003-113 where a leaking roof led to a 52,000 repair deduction.
Cost segregationists make a living doing what Roy suggests. | |
Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| One of the important ;essons here is that 4 or 5 CPA's gave different answers. the guys who just throw out "5 years", "7 Years" with no cite sometimes make me shake my head. My quick research brought me to Bjeters conclusion. Now apparantly there is other evidence? What a business. the most basic thing.... DEPRECIATION.......and qualified professionals can reasonably disagree. | |
Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| I just looked at the 2 posts from Roy and see nothing authoritative that tells us HVAC is anything but 1250 property. I am still in agreement with Bjeter. Roy, what is your position, difficult to determine what you are trying to say. | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| Wow, I must recant my advice. We have always taken 7 years on HVAC at my firm, 4 CPAs with over 31 years exp. each. DUH? I agree with Bjeter, a structual component, 27.5 or 39 years. But, how many hvac units have you ever seen last 10 years or more, not many. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| Under the second link I posted is a recap, by what I think is AIA Contract divisions, of various Court Cases. Under HVAC, you will note the split is almost 50% betwixt and between.
I am suggesting, note this, that you must use your professional judgement. If the facts in this case are 1. adding a HVAC unit to a metal building, 2. the unit is made up of three main components (one on a slab outside the building, an air handling unit inside the building, and duct work), 3. the building existed and was used before the installation of the HVAC, 4. minor modifications ,if any, were made to the actual existing building, then I would lean toward a 5 year life. This is because 1. the HVAC units will not last as long as the building, 2. the HVAC was not part of the building at the time it was constructed, 3. I have a hard time seeing, with these facts, that the HVAC is part of the structure of the building, (the Service's position is everything is a structural part of the building, which, the Courts have called into question). Now, if the HVAC was part of the original construction of the building and the building was sticks and bricks that would be a different fact pattern. I would suggest you read the referenced Court cases until you develope a feel for the issues. You may find one exactly on point. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| I would agree with Bjeter that HVAC when installed is 27.5 or 39 years. The poster says the furnace was replaced, and gives no indication it was not working at that time, so 39 years. I've always used the 27.5 or 39 year. | |
| 10 April 2008 | |
| Doesn't matter about the useful life, that's what is so crazy about all of this. I did cost segregation studies in my Big 4 life. It's basically all smoke and mirrors. We got to charge a lot to basically give clients the time value of money. In most cases, our fees cut a significant chunk out of any savings actually realized. I'll give JR the furnace repair, that's what I would do, but the new stuff is clearly 39 or 27.5 yr property.
RoyDale, the link you provided is consistent with 1.48-1, it doesn't supercede it, it says exactly what §1.48-1 says. §179 is only allowable for trade or business assets. Unless your trade or business is renting property, you can't take §179 on rental property. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| Bjeter, I am sorry, but are you saying rental expenses are not deductible under Section 162?
Are you also saying, renting real property even one can not be a trade or business? | |
Tiredoftaxes (talk|edits) said: | 10 April 2008 |
| Thank you all for your input on this matter. I really had never used this site before. Now I know where to go when I need some input on questions. It is amazing that there are so many different answers, but I had to go with what I thought in the first place, 27.5 or 39, even though it seems way too long. | |


