Camper shell

[BOB W]

This site concerns real estate, and I have used shorter depr periods for leasehold improvements and other components of bldgs, for example. I have never seen anything regarding the $200K figure, however, and this does not mention it. That is the part I was curious about.

In re-reading the article it looks like the $200,000 was the minimum value that the COMPANY would accept to do a cost segregation. Another used $500,000 as a minimum. So you are correct, there is no IRS minimum.

Sorry for the mis information.

[AJsTax]

But!!

If the taxpayer switches back to the actual expense method for the vehicle and uses straight line depreciation, then the cost of the shell can be depreciated as well.

You are classifying the camper as an improvement to the vehicle. I totally disagree with this assumption. The type of improvements that are covered by that section is major repairs or improvements that cannot be easily removed from the vehicle and in most cases the vehicle would not function without them. The camper shell is a totally separate item by itself, can be installed and removed in a matter of a couple of minutes and the vehicles functions just fine as it was originally intended without the shell.
If you wanted to take that assumption to a different example, take a tractor. You buy the tractor and you buy many implements that are attached to the tractor to do the various chores that need to be done. By itself the tractor does very little; with the implements attached you can get something done. Are the the tractor and all the implements considered one asset?? Nope, they are each one separate.
The camper shell is a temporary attachment to the truck and should be considered a separate asset on its own.

[WhiteOleander]

You are classifying the camper as an improvement to the vehicle. I totally disagree with this assumption. The type of improvements that are covered by that section is major repairs or improvements that cannot be easily removed from the vehicle and in most cases the vehicle would not function without them. The camper shell is a totally separate item by itself, can be installed and removed in a matter of a couple of minutes and the vehicles functions just fine as it was originally intended without the shell.
If you wanted to take that assumption to a different example, take a tractor. You buy the tractor and you buy many implements that are attached to the tractor to do the various chores that need to be done. By itself the tractor does very little; with the implements attached you can get something done. Are the the tractor and all the implements considered one asset?? Nope, they are each one separate.
The camper shell is a temporary attachment to the truck and should be considered a separate asset on its own.

I agree with this assessment. The camper shell is, in my opinion, a type of trailer. If the t/p had purchased a trailer to be pulled along behind the truck with a hitch or a fifth wheel, it would not be considered part of the truck. It would be treated separately. The shell is the same. But, it's not pulled, it's just set onto the truck.

I do think I would use the same business use percentage for depreciation as was used for the truck. That way, the t/p would only take the businees portion as a deduction.

[Bees Knees]

The camper shell is, in my opinion, a type of trailer. If the t/p had purchased a trailer to be pulled along behind the truck with a hitch or a fifth wheel, it would not be considered part of the truck. It would be treated separately. The shell is the same. But, it's not pulled, it's just set onto the truck.

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. A camper shell may not be as easy as hooking up a trailer, or tractor implement, or snow plow. I know some are made to hook up quickly and easily. Others are bolted on to the pickup truck bed with a million bolts, and take a special hoist to lift them off. The original poster did not say, other than it can be removed. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is as portable and detached as a trailer or fifth wheel. It all depends.