Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. United States

I concur in the majority’s result but wish to state the reasoning I perceive necessary to that result.

The critical inquiry is whether a portion of this concededly § 38 property ceased to be § 38 property solely by reason of the § 1017 election plaintiff made in a subsequent taxable year. Defendant, it seems to me, has two basic arguments, *128neither of which are persuasive. One argument is that the later § 1017 adjustment is deemed under Treas. Reg. § 1.48-1(b)(2) to alter the use of that portion of the property in the year the asset was placed in service. While Treas. Reg. § 1.47-2(a)(2) does…