Discussion:Depreciating a new roof/roof repair on a residential rental property

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Depreciating a new roof/roof repair on a residential rental property


Amtax (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
I have a client with a rental unit (residential) that had a roof replacement with a cost of $4,101. Can I claim this cost as a repair or do I have to depreciate the "asset" over 27.5 years with the real property?

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
Depreciate. If it were repairing part of the roof, then expense.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

January 23, 2007
Was it leaking/damaged? If so, then the courts are saying it's a repair. Otherwise, depreciate.

WesR (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
Hi a general method of determining expense vs capitalize is if the cost is to KEEP (property rented needed to remain in working order) the property in a rentable condition you can expense. If the cost is to PUT(buy property empty cannot be rented due to condition or just purchased property etc.) the property into a rentable condition then must be capitalized. I vote expense. bye

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
JR refers to http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Northen.SUM.WPD.pdf where the petitioners had a leaking roof.

Deback (talk|edits) said:

January 23, 2007
"I vote expense"


Wes - How can you vote when you don't know if the client's new roof was to keep the property in a rentable condition or if the new roof was to put the property into a rentable condition?

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
"Thus, amounts paid that keep property in ordinarily efficient operating condition are not necessarily deductible repair costs, particularly if the useful life is extended."


From the improvements sections of Proposed Reg. 168745-03 - which I think is a T.D. by now. See f(3)(i)(ii)(iii). Given the original post was not a leaky roof or the like but was from normal wear then I think the cited section might apply. Unless of course, the new repair allocation method were adopted in which a portion could be expensed.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
The original post only says they had a roof replacement and gives no reason. We had our roof replaced this year because every time we had heavy rain, we had to put trashbags on the bed and a pan on the floor to catch the water dripping steadily in our bedroom. It is a fact of life around here [this board] that people post semi-vague questions and then go away, maybe because no one wants to be caught in the crossfire! :)


I move Tim put that proposed Reg, TD if you will, somewhere in our tools.

Solomon (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
May be Tim was waiting for a second to your motion DT - so I second your motion. :)

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

January 23, 2007
How's this: REG-168745-03 (2006, withdrawn).

Might need a bit of formatting though. I am not yet complete with my automated import & conversion program to get all of this content.

- Tim Doyle, TaxAlmanac Moderator - Talk to me 13:35, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 January 2007
Thank you Tim!!

Tdoyle (talk|edits) said:

January 23, 2007
You're welcome. I should be able to add hundreds of items like this if I can find the time to put the finishing touches on my process.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools