James M. Tunnell, JR., and Mildred S. Tunnell v. The United States of America, Robert W. Tunnell and Eolyne K. Tunnell v. The United States, 512 F.2d 1192, 3rd Cir. (1975)

512 F.
2d 1192
75-1 USTC P 9306
James M. TUNNELL, Jr., and Mildred S. Tunnell

v.
The UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.
Robert W. TUNNELL and Eolyne K. Tunnell
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellant.
Nos. 74-1675, 74-1678.
United States Court of Appeals,

Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 7, 1975.
Decided March 11, 1975.
As Amended April 23, 1975.
Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Richard W.

Perkins, William A. Friedlander, Tax. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for appellant.
James M. Tunnell, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington,
Del., Robert W. Tunnell, Georgetown, Del., pro se and as attys. for other
appellees.
Before ADAMS, ROSENN, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
Taxpayers, Eolyne K. and Robert W. Tunnell, and Mildred S. Tunnell and

James M. Tunnell, Jr., formed two partnerships to develop and operate two
mobile home parks known as "Pot Nets" and "Indian Landing" in Sussex
County, Delaware.1 Third parties lease lots on a long term basis in both parks
for the purpose of placing thereon mobile homes for use as summer and
weekend dwellings.
Both mobile home parks are situated on land which, in its original state, was
part marsh, part cultivated, and part forested. Low-lying marshes separated the
wooded and cultivated areas from the open waters of Indian River Bay, and,
being soft and wet, were unsuited for either buildings or roads. In order to
construct the parks, taxpayers designed and dredged channels, called lagoons,
and used the material produced by the dredging to fill the marshland, thus
enabling the construction thereon of roads, and recreational and living areas.
Bulkheaded lagoons, more aesthetically pleasing than the marshlands, provide

a safe and very convenient harbor for the boats of the residents of the parks.
The lagoons also provide improved surface water drainage for the flat and low
terrain on which the parks were built.
The wooded areas in their original state also were unsuited for construction.
Taxpayers therefore thinned out portions of these areas and cleared the
remaining land. All of the solid land areas were then graded, shaped, and
landscaped for use as home sites, roads, and recreational areas. When
completed, the parks featured home sites, private roads, street lights, water and
electricity lines, landscaping, and various recreational facilities.
On the partnership tax returns for the years in dispute, taxpayers had
depreciated the total cost of constructing the lagoons. Useful lives of ten and
twenty years were claimed for the Pot Nets and Indian Landing lagoons,
respectively. Taxpayers also had deducted as operating expenses the costs of
clearing, grading, landscaping, and staking out the mobile home lots.
The Commissioner disallowed these deductions. Taxpayers paid under protest

the taxes allegedly due plus interest, and then brought suit in the district court
for a refund. In the district court, they sought to depreciate as capital
expenditures the amounts previously deducted as operating expenses in the
returns.
The district court held that the lagoons were depreciable, and allowed the
depreciation deductions to be based upon the total cost of building the lagoons.
The court equated the useful lives of the lagoons with the useful lives of the
parks, which it believed the Commissioner had agreed were twenty years. The
court also held depreciable over a period of twenty years the costs of clearing,
landscaping, and staking out the land because the benefits of these expenditures
were peculiar to the operation of the parks. Depreciation deductions for the
expenses of grading the land were disallowed because the grading produced
benefits which would run with the land after the operation of the parks had
terminated. The useful lives of the grading benefits therefore were
indeterminate and not depreciable.

8
The Government appeals. It now concedes that the costs of designing and
constructing the lagoons, and of clearing, staking out, and landscaping the land
were depreciable. Based on the IRS Depreciation Guidelines, Rev.Proc. 62-21,
1962-2 Cum.Bull. 418, the Government also concedes the useful lives of the
lagoons and of the landscaping to be twenty years. The Government argues,
however, that the district court erred in calculating the depreciable basis of the
lagoons, and in assigning useful lives of twenty years to the clearing,
landscaping, and staking out of the land. We find merit in the Government's
contentions, vacate the judgment, and remand.
The basic rule, according to Treasury regulations, is that depreciation will be

allowed on that sum which will, at the end of the estimated useful life of the
depreciable property, equal the cost or other basis of the property less its
salvage value. Treas.Reg. 1.167(a)-1(a) (1956). Salvage value is the "amount
(determined at the time of acquisition which is estimated will be realizable
upon sale or other disposition of an asset when it is no longer useful in the
taxpayer's trade or business ...." Treas.Reg. 1.167(a)-1(c) (1) (1956). This rule
of depreciation, controversial as it may have been at one time, was approved in
Massey Motors v. United States, 364 U.S. 92, 80 S.Ct. 1411, 4 L.Ed.2d 1592
(1960).
10
The district court, in allowing taxpayers to depreciate the total cost of designing
and constructing the lagoons, apparently assumed that the assets created by
these expenditures would have no value at the end of twenty years. Two assets
were created: the lagoons themselves, and the material used to fill, grade, and
convert the surrounding marshlands into dry usable land. The lagoons, the
Government now concedes, will be worthless at the end of twenty years. The
fill, however, created additional value in the land, a value having indeterminate
life, and this fill, therefore, is not subject to depreciation.2 Treas.Reg.
1.167(a)-2 (1956). We see no reason to disregard this value merely because it is
a by-product of the dredging. Indeed, deducting such value in calculating the
amount to be depreciated is consistent with the intent of Congress "not to make
taxpayers a profit ... but merely to protect them from a loss." Massey Motors v.
United States, supra, 364 U.S. at 101, 80 S.Ct. at 1416. We believe, therefore,
the proper amount recoverable by depreciation is the total cost of designing and
constructing the lagoons less the sum it would have cost the taxpayers to obtain
the necessary quantity of fill from their own property, if possible, or elsewhere
to grade and convert the marshlands into suitable, dry land for the operation of
mobile parks.3
11
The Government argues, however, that since taxpayers, by not proving the cost
of the land fill and thereby not proving this excess amount, did not meet their
burden of proving the amount to which they were entitled as a depreciation
deduction. We agree that taxpayers have the burden in a refund suit of proving
not only an entitlement to a refund but also the amount of the entitlement.
Crosby v. United States, 496 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir. 1974). Had the taxpayers been
aware that this excess amount was to have been in controversy, we would also
agree that the taxpayers would not be entitled to any refund for depreciation of
the lagoons. Both the deficiency notice4 and the pretrial order, 5 however, show
that the Government disallowed the depreciation deductions not because the
deductions disregarded the salvage value of the land fill, but because the
Government regarded the lagoons as inextricably associated with the land and
not depreciable at all. Not until the concluding testimony of the last witness did
the Government make explicit the theory upon which it now relies. Under these
circumstances, we believe it unfair to deny taxpayers their deductions for
failure to meet their burden of proof. We believe that, under the circumstances
of this case, justice requires, that we remand to the district court so that
taxpayers may have the opportunity to prove the amount on which depreciation
properly may be recovered.6
12
With respect to the deductions for clearing and staking out the land, the district
court, under the impression that the Commissioner had agreed to useful lives of
twenty years for the parks, equated the useful lives of these improvements with
the useful lives of the parks. We find no fault with such equation. An
examination of the record, however, discloses that while the Commissioner had
agreed that many of the various physical components of the parks had useful
lives of no more than twenty years, he had made no such agreement about the
useful lives of the parks. To equate the useful lives of the parks with the useful
lives of many of the parks' physical components was error.
13
Taxpayers argue that the useful lives of the parks were twenty years for two
reasons: (1) so many of the physical components of the parks would wear out
within twenty years that the usefulness of the parks would likewise terminate;7
and (2) the value of the parks inextricably was tied to the lagoons whose useful
lives the Government concedes to be twenty years.
14
A review of the record leaves us unclear as to whether taxpayers have carried

their burden of proof on either of their contentions. Therefore, we also remand
the case to the district court for further evidence and findings on this issue. See
Hoffman Motors Corp. v. United States, 473 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1973). To be
successful on remand, taxpayers must show that the useful lives of the parks
inextricably are related to the useful lives of the lagoons or to the sum of the
parks' physical components that will wear out within twenty years so that the
parks' usefulness qua parks thereupon will terminate.
15
The judgment of the district court will be vacated and the case will be
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
16
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Our statement of the facts has been limited to those relevant to this appeal. A
fuller version appears in the opinion of the district court. 367 F.Supp. 557
(D.Del.1974)
Taxpayers argue that since the lagoons, having useful lives of twenty years,
will fill with the dredged material, the fill also has a useful life of only twenty
years, and thus will be worthless at the end of that period
We do not believe that the record supports the assertion that the lagoons will be
filled with the dredged material. Indeed the argument is directly contradicted
by the district court's finding, which we believe is supported by the record, that
the land improved by the fill will not wear out. 367 F.Supp. at 563.
This formulation assumes that the total cost of designing and constructing the
lagoons exceeds the cost of the fill. If this assumption proves to be incorrect,
taxpayers will not be able to recover any amount in depreciation
The deficiency notice provided in pertinent part:

The property in this case does not meet any of the requirements necessary for
the application of the depreciation deduction .... The costs of lagoons that is
(sic) being disallowed consisted of the initial dredging of the lagoons. In
conclusion, a taxpayer must show clear provision for any deduction claimed
and the deduction in this case does not qualify under Section 167, but represents
a capital expenditure that should be added to the cost of the land. It is clear that
land or any cost that is inextricably associated with land is not subject to the
depreciation allowance. The reason for this is that it has a life that is not
susceptible to measurement .... Therefore, ... the depreciation deduction is being
disallowed.
The pretrial order provided in pertinent part:

(d) ... Defendant contends that (the expenditures for creating the lagoons) are
for permanent land improvements ... with indeterminable useful lives for which
no depreciation or expense deductions are allowable ....
(i) Defendant expects to prove that plaintiffs are not entitled to take
depreciation deductions for the cost of the initial dredging of lagoons and
permanent land improvements ....
6
Since we must remand, we deem it appropriate to note that the Government's

brief concedes that taxpayers' costs for designing and laying out the lagoons are
depreciable over the useful life of the lagoons. These costs, however, were
lumped together with payments for staking out mobile home lots and were not
separately established. In view of our holding, a breakdown may be necessary
should the district court determine that the useful life of the parks qua parks
exceeds twenty years
The physical components that will wear out include water systems, electrical
systems, television equipment, streets, street lights, playground equipment,
piers, docks, bulkheading, slips, groins, jetties, and swimming pools

James M. Tunnell, JR., and Mildred S. Tunnell v. The United States of America, Robert W. Tunnell and Eolyne K. Tunnell v. The United States, 512 F.2d 1192, 3rd Cir. (1975)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

James M. Tunnell, JR., and Mildred S. Tunnell v. The United States of America, Robert W. Tunnell and Eolyne K. Tunnell v. The United States, 512 F.2d 1192, 3rd Cir. (1975)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

James M. Tunnell, JR., and Mildred S. Tunnell v. The United States of America, Robert W. Tunnell and Eolyne K. Tunnell v. The United States, 512 F.2d 1192, 3rd Cir. (1975)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

512 F.

James M. TUNNELL, Jr., and Mildred S. Tunnell

United States Court of Appeals,

Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Richard W.

Taxpayers, Eolyne K. and Robert W. Tunnell, and Mildred S. Tunnell and

Bulkheaded lagoons, more aesthetically pleasing than the marshlands, provide

The Commissioner disallowed these deductions. Taxpayers paid under protest

indeterminate and not depreciable.

The basic rule, according to Treasury regulations, is that depreciation will be

A review of the record leaves us unclear as to whether taxpayers have carried

The parties shall bear their own costs.

The deficiency notice provided in pertinent part:

The pretrial order provided in pertinent part:

Since we must remand, we deem it appropriate to note that the Government's

You might also like