Loading…
IRS's mixed treatment of asbestos abatement costs
In several rulings over the past 2 years, the IRS has generally concluded that the costs directly associated with environmental remediation must be capitalized. In each of these rulines, the IRS concluded that the costs did not qualify as currently deductible repair costs because the costs either in...
Saved in:
| Published in: | The Tax Adviser 1994-06, Vol.25 (6), p.360 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Magazinearticle |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | |
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 360 |
| container_title | The Tax Adviser |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Conjura, Carol |
| description | In several rulings over the past 2 years, the IRS has generally concluded that the costs directly associated with environmental remediation must be capitalized. In each of these rulines, the IRS concluded that the costs did not qualify as currently deductible repair costs because the costs either increased the value of the property or enhanced its use to the taxpayer, thereby resulting in permanent improvements the costs of which must be capitalized. However, in Ltr. Rul. 9411002, the conclusions reached by the IRS are mixed. While the IRS concluded that asbestos removal costs must be capitalized, it permitted the taxpayer to currently deduct asbestos encapsulation costs as incidental repairs. |
| format | magazinearticle |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_194942577</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A15475226</galeid><sourcerecordid>A15475226</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1287-218961c6eed2215773cd0c3683356ac4048460d2017f24020bb0cb83a32f2ff13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptzk1LxDAQBuAcFFxX_0P14sVCMvlqjsvix8KC4Me5pOmkVNpmTSL4863uHgR35jDw8vAyJ2RBKTelMVKfkfOU3uk80ogFYZvnl5tUjP0XtkWOaPOIUy6CL2xqMOWQCtvYjL-pCymnC3Lq7ZDw8nCX5O3-7nX9WG6fHjbr1bbsGFS6BFYZxZxCbAGY1Jq7ljquKs6lsk5QUQlFW6BMexAUaNNQ11TccvDgPeNLcrXv3cXw8Tm_UkfchZhTzYwwAn4ql-R6bzo7YN1PPuRo3dgnV6-YFFoCqBndHkEdThjtECb0_Rz_5eURPm-LY-_--2-H1WbO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><pqid>194942577</pqid></control><display><type>magazinearticle</type><title>IRS's mixed treatment of asbestos abatement costs</title><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><creator>Conjura, Carol</creator><creatorcontrib>Conjura, Carol</creatorcontrib><description>In several rulings over the past 2 years, the IRS has generally concluded that the costs directly associated with environmental remediation must be capitalized. In each of these rulines, the IRS concluded that the costs did not qualify as currently deductible repair costs because the costs either increased the value of the property or enhanced its use to the taxpayer, thereby resulting in permanent improvements the costs of which must be capitalized. However, in Ltr. Rul. 9411002, the conclusions reached by the IRS are mixed. While the IRS concluded that asbestos removal costs must be capitalized, it permitted the taxpayer to currently deduct asbestos encapsulation costs as incidental repairs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-9957</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TAADDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: American Institute of CPA's</publisher><subject>Asbestos ; Asbestos removal ; Bioremediation ; Capital expenditures ; Capitalization ; Corporate tax planning ; Environmental restoration ; Expenditures ; Improvements (Law) ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Letter rulings ; Ltr. Rul. 9240004 ; Ltr. Rul. 9315004 ; Ltr. Rul. 9411002 ; Office space ; Pollution control costs ; State court decisions ; Tax court decisions ; Tax courts ; Tax deductions ; Taxation ; Taxpayers</subject><ispartof>The Tax Adviser, 1994-06, Vol.25 (6), p.360</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 1994 American Institute of CPA's</rights><rights>Copyright American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Jun 1994</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/194942577?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>312,780,784,791,15316,36062,44363</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Conjura, Carol</creatorcontrib><title>IRS's mixed treatment of asbestos abatement costs</title><title>The Tax Adviser</title><description>In several rulings over the past 2 years, the IRS has generally concluded that the costs directly associated with environmental remediation must be capitalized. In each of these rulines, the IRS concluded that the costs did not qualify as currently deductible repair costs because the costs either increased the value of the property or enhanced its use to the taxpayer, thereby resulting in permanent improvements the costs of which must be capitalized. However, in Ltr. Rul. 9411002, the conclusions reached by the IRS are mixed. While the IRS concluded that asbestos removal costs must be capitalized, it permitted the taxpayer to currently deduct asbestos encapsulation costs as incidental repairs.</description><subject>Asbestos</subject><subject>Asbestos removal</subject><subject>Bioremediation</subject><subject>Capital expenditures</subject><subject>Capitalization</subject><subject>Corporate tax planning</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Expenditures</subject><subject>Improvements (Law)</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Letter rulings</subject><subject>Ltr. Rul. 9240004</subject><subject>Ltr. Rul. 9315004</subject><subject>Ltr. Rul. 9411002</subject><subject>Office space</subject><subject>Pollution control costs</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Tax court decisions</subject><subject>Tax courts</subject><subject>Tax deductions</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>Taxpayers</subject><issn>0039-9957</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNptzk1LxDAQBuAcFFxX_0P14sVCMvlqjsvix8KC4Me5pOmkVNpmTSL4863uHgR35jDw8vAyJ2RBKTelMVKfkfOU3uk80ogFYZvnl5tUjP0XtkWOaPOIUy6CL2xqMOWQCtvYjL-pCymnC3Lq7ZDw8nCX5O3-7nX9WG6fHjbr1bbsGFS6BFYZxZxCbAGY1Jq7ljquKs6lsk5QUQlFW6BMexAUaNNQ11TccvDgPeNLcrXv3cXw8Tm_UkfchZhTzYwwAn4ql-R6bzo7YN1PPuRo3dgnV6-YFFoCqBndHkEdThjtECb0_Rz_5eURPm-LY-_--2-H1WbO</recordid><startdate>19940601</startdate><enddate>19940601</enddate><creator>Conjura, Carol</creator><general>American Institute of CPA's</general><general>American Institute of Certified Public Accountants</general><scope>ILT</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4S-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19940601</creationdate><title>IRS's mixed treatment of asbestos abatement costs</title><author>Conjura, Carol</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1287-218961c6eed2215773cd0c3683356ac4048460d2017f24020bb0cb83a32f2ff13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><prefilter>magazinearticle</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Asbestos</topic><topic>Asbestos removal</topic><topic>Bioremediation</topic><topic>Capital expenditures</topic><topic>Capitalization</topic><topic>Corporate tax planning</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Expenditures</topic><topic>Improvements (Law)</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Letter rulings</topic><topic>Ltr. Rul. 9240004</topic><topic>Ltr. Rul. 9315004</topic><topic>Ltr. Rul. 9411002</topic><topic>Office space</topic><topic>Pollution control costs</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Tax court decisions</topic><topic>Tax courts</topic><topic>Tax deductions</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>Taxpayers</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Conjura, Carol</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>BPIR.com Limited</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Tax Adviser</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Conjura, Carol</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>IRS's mixed treatment of asbestos abatement costs</atitle><jtitle>The Tax Adviser</jtitle><date>1994-06-01</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>360</spage><pages>360-</pages><issn>0039-9957</issn><coden>TAADDJ</coden><abstract>In several rulings over the past 2 years, the IRS has generally concluded that the costs directly associated with environmental remediation must be capitalized. In each of these rulines, the IRS concluded that the costs did not qualify as currently deductible repair costs because the costs either increased the value of the property or enhanced its use to the taxpayer, thereby resulting in permanent improvements the costs of which must be capitalized. However, in Ltr. Rul. 9411002, the conclusions reached by the IRS are mixed. While the IRS concluded that asbestos removal costs must be capitalized, it permitted the taxpayer to currently deduct asbestos encapsulation costs as incidental repairs.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>American Institute of CPA's</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0039-9957 |
| ispartof | The Tax Adviser, 1994-06, Vol.25 (6), p.360 |
| issn | 0039-9957 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_194942577 |
| source | ABI/INFORM Global |
| subjects | Asbestos Asbestos removal Bioremediation Capital expenditures Capitalization Corporate tax planning Environmental restoration Expenditures Improvements (Law) Laws, regulations and rules Letter rulings Ltr. Rul. 9240004 Ltr. Rul. 9315004 Ltr. Rul. 9411002 Office space Pollution control costs State court decisions Tax court decisions Tax courts Tax deductions Taxation Taxpayers |
| title | IRS's mixed treatment of asbestos abatement costs |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T16%3A32%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=IRS's%20mixed%20treatment%20of%20asbestos%20abatement%20costs&rft.jtitle=The%20Tax%20Adviser&rft.au=Conjura,%20Carol&rft.date=1994-06-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=360&rft.pages=360-&rft.issn=0039-9957&rft.coden=TAADDJ&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA15475226%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1287-218961c6eed2215773cd0c3683356ac4048460d2017f24020bb0cb83a32f2ff13%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194942577&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A15475226&rfr_iscdi=true |