Hospital Corporation of America v. Commissioner
The Tax Court held that investment-tax-credit tests still decide whether hospital building items are personal property or structural components under ACRS and MACRS. The IRS later agreed with that legal test, not with the item-by-item results.
Educational information, not tax advice.
Updated 2026-10-14
Key takeaways
- ITC-era tests still govern personal-property versus structural-component classification under ACRS and MACRS.
- The IRS agreed with that legal test in AOD 1999-008, not with HCA’s item-by-item results.
- The case does not make any particular hospital item 5-year property in another building.
- Educational information, not tax advice.
Case record
- Court
- U.S. Tax Court
- Citation
- 109 T.C. 21 (1997)
- Decision date
- 1997-07-24
- Facts
- Hospital Corporation of America and Subsidiaries placed hospital facilities in service in 1985 through 1988 and classified many constructed items as tangible personal property recovered over five years. Property placed in service in 1985 and 1986 was subject to ACRS; property placed in service after 1986 was subject to MACRS. The Commissioner determined that the items were structural components of the hospital buildings and had to be recovered over the same period as the buildings.
- Issue
- After ACRS and MACRS, and after the statutory bar on component depreciation of buildings, do the pre-1981 investment tax credit tests still decide whether an item is tangible personal property or a structural component? If so, were the disputed hospital items personal property or structural components?
- Holding
- The ITC-era tests still apply when assigning ACRS and MACRS recovery classes. Treas. Reg. §1.48-1 and the Whiteco permanence analysis decide whether an item is §1245 tangible personal property or a §1250 structural component. The bar on component depreciation does not redefine property that would have been personal property under the ITC as part of the building. The court then classified the disputed items one by one and treated most of them as §1245 property.
- Reasoning
- Congress used the same personal-property and structural-component vocabulary in ACRS that the ITC regulations had already defined. The court found no intent to fold former §1245 property into §1250 merely because the item was attached to a hospital. It rejected the Commissioner’s argument that §168(f)(1) changed the definition of tangible personal property after 1981. It then applied Whiteco’s six factors and the regulation’s structural-component list to each category rather than treating each hospital as one undivided asset.
- Relevance to cost segregation
- This is the foundational MACRS cost-segregation opinion. The IRS Cost Segregation Audit Techniques Guide cites it as the decision that supplied legal support for studies. Action on Decision 1999-008 acquiesced in the legal test and expressly refused to treat the item results as a rule. Later apartment and restaurant cases show that the same test can leave most items with the building.
Hospital Corporation of America & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 21 (1997), is the leading regular Tax Court opinion on cost segregation after ACRS and MACRS. HCA built hospitals in the mid-1980s and claimed five-year recovery for a long list of items it treated as tangible personal property. The Commissioner treated those items as structural components recovered with the buildings. The Commissioner also argued that allowing a shorter recovery period for attached items was forbidden “component depreciation,” and that pre-1981 investment-credit cases had little to say after 1981.
Judge Wells rejected both legal arguments. The court concluded that Congress prohibited depreciating a building by components, but did not intend to redefine §1250 property so that it swallowed items that had been §1245 property for investment-credit purposes. To the extent a disputed item would have qualified as tangible personal property under the ITC, it also qualifies as tangible personal property for ACRS and MACRS. The court then applied Treas. Reg. §1.48-1 and the Whiteco factors to each category of hospital items.
The IRS response matters as much as the opinion. In Action on Decision 1999-008 (August 30, 1999), Chief Counsel acquiesced “to the extent that the Tax Court held that the term ‘tangible personal property,’ as defined under a pre-1981 ITC analysis, has continued viability under ACRS and MACRS.” The AOD then said the classification of particular items is a factual question. The Service did not agree with the court’s determinations on the various disputed properties. It could not recommend appeal because it could not say the court was clearly erroneous. The AOD pointed to Boddie-Noell and La Petite Academy as cases in which items treated as personal property in HCA were treated as structural components on different records.
Cost segregation work still starts from that legal test. A study may separate personal property from structural components under the same regulation and case law that governed the ITC. What it may not do is treat HCA as a hospital shopping list. Vinyl wall covering, a dedicated outlet, or decorative lighting in one hospital does not become 5-year property in every building. AmeriSouth later applied the same authorities to garden apartments and kept most of a 1,000-item study with the 27.5-year buildings. Super Intelligence, as CostSeg SI describes it, is a proposed workflow for organizing facts against those tests — not an operational claim that any agent has classified a building.
This page is educational information, not tax advice. A filing position belongs to the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s CPA. Regular Tax Court opinions bind the Tax Court; they do not convert one hospital’s facts into a nationwide asset class.
What the IRS accepted
AOD 1999-008 is a two-part document. Recommendation 1 is acquiescence in the legal conclusion that ITC tests carry into ACRS and MACRS. Recommendation 2 is nonacquiescence in the item classifications. Examiners may still challenge whether a particular item relates to operation or maintenance of the building, whether it is inherently permanent, and whether the taxpayer’s costs are proved.
The AOD also reminds readers that AODs are not to be relied upon or cited as precedent by taxpayers. The opinion itself is the authority for the legal test. The AOD is useful only as a public statement of how the Service read that opinion.
How the court analyzed items
The AOD describes the court’s method: examine each category, decide whether the asset is a structural component of the facility or tangible personal property under Treas. Reg. §1.48-1(c), and use the Whiteco factors to decide inherent permanence. Later IRS written determinations summarize the same method as asking whether an item was part of the original plan of construction and whether it relates to operation or maintenance of the building.
Scott Paper’s functional view of electrical systems is part of that toolkit for mixed-use electrical cost. It is not a license to allocate plumbing or HVAC as an IRS-accepted method. The audit guide treats functional allocation as an electrical-distribution technique.
Limits for later buildings
HCA is a hospital construction case from the mid-1980s. It does not hold that decorative lighting, kitchen equipment, millwork, or any other item is personal property in every building. Memorandum opinions, including AmeriSouth XXXII, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-67, show that aggressive component lists can fail when the taxpayer does not prove unusual circumstances or non-permanence.
Peco Foods later held that a written §1060 purchase-price allocation can stop a buyer from subdividing agreed “building” amounts. HCA is not an acquisition-allocation case and does not override a binding written schedule.
Verification. The legal test and IRS position are taken from the opened AOD PDF (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-aod/hcaaod.pdf) and the Leagle opinion header (filed July 24, 1997; Judge Wells; docket Nos. 10663-91, 13074-91, 28588-91, 6351-92). The Leagle page did not return the full item-by-item discussion. This page therefore does not invent a hospital asset schedule.
Sources
- 1
- 2
- 3IRS Publication 5653 — Cost Segregation Audit Techniques Guide (rev. 2-2025)(opens in a new tab)
Written for IRS examiners. The guide states it is not an official pronouncement of law and cannot be cited as authority. It predates the July 2025 law.
- 4