Violin depreciation

[Black Bart]

Deer Cheers,

with you guys.

But seriously, to depreciate any asset under the US tax code, it must have a
determinable useful life.

A Stradivarius doesn't qualify.

Besiders , who would use a violin to play a square dance gigs?
It's a FIDDLE!

You cain't shoot from the hip when NYEA is in the neighborhood (that's one learned Yank).

[erchess]

Now I am confused again

Come to think of it, I had heard about the depreciation of antique violin bows. However, I had also read that in general you can't depreciate items with more or less infinite lifespans such as land. I thought that in general antiques can't be depreciated.

Oh one other thing - just because you take the sec 179 election to expense on your full basis in the asset, in my software I still have to put in all the information I would put in to depreciate the asset. I realize that the class life ends up not changing the bottom line on the return, but isn't it somehow better to put the right class life?

[ChEAr$]

Tell me then,

The Tax Court has allowed depreciation on expensive violins and even antique violin bows. You might want to read Liddle 103 TC 285. That is a regular Tax Court case - full value as precedent. Also, Liddle will cite a case called Simon, where the antique bows were allowed depreciation.

What is the date of that tax court case.

Also, is that you, Frank? (grin)

[Davc]

Come to think of it, I had heard about the depreciation of antique violin bows. However, I had also read that in general you can't depreciate items with more or less infinite lifespans such as land. I thought that in general antiques can't be depreciated.

I believe the determining factor would be the use of the antique. If just on display, no depreciation. If "subject to wear and tear", depreciate.

[New York Enrolled Agent]

To answer the question posed by ChEAr$, Liddle was released as a TC decision on 8/22/94. It was not a unanimous decision by the TC but it only takes a majority.

The IRS appealed & lost. The decision of the CA3 cited as 76 AFTR 2d 95-6255 (9/15/95) has the following paragraph (emphasis added) at the beginning of the decision.

"Judge: MCKEE, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court we are asked to decide if a valuable bass violin can be depreciated under the Accelerated Cost Recovery System when used as a tool of trade by a professional musician even though the instrument actually INCREASED in value while the musician owned it. We determine that, under the facts before us, the taxpayer properly depreciated the instrument and therefore affirm the decision of the Tax Court. "

Note this case was decided under ACRS. After 1986 §168 was modified to use MACRS. I believe the only difference in the result of this case would be the use of 7 year property (as noted by others).