Kwik Dock has been designed to provide a fully modularized, expandable and relocatable transfer dock facility in significantly less time and at competitive prices when compared to conventional construction methods. Offered in a variety of packages, ranging from "shell" buildings and foundation system to a full turn-key building, to suit the needs and budget of the end user.

Benefits of Kwik Dock Construction

The product is readily relocatable and should qualify for an accelerated depreciation schedule of 7 or 12 years. Present depreciation on terminals in 39 years.

Dock floors do not sweat as there is flow through ventilation under the floor slabs.

Fabrication off site, which reduces the burden of loss productivity on site while construction is going on to add doors to an existing facility.

Design criteria is above conventional construction

Add doors or an entire facility to a leased terminal or build a new facility on leased land. The assets can be relocated.

Bays can be constructed while permitting is being completed

Plans developed for national use with consideration for seismic zones

No cavity fill required for the dock

Precast post tension planks can be used for aprons

24 door dock can be erected in 30 days

Bays of 4 doors are stand alone in design; they can be added or removed with out impact to the structural integrity of the building

Fabrication of panels and concrete components can be manufactured locally. This helps reduce the cost, as the freight cost is expensive if hauled a considerable distance.

Modular offices are in existance to connect to the dock

Portable Warehouse Dock

Depreciable Life/Tax Opinion

FACTS: The Kwik-Dock Company is in the business of selling a standard modular warehouse structure to seasonal businesses that might want to assemble, relocate, and reassemble such structures according to the seasonality of their business needs.

CONCLUSION: Based upon extensive research on the definition of personal vs. Real property, such property could be classified as tangible personal property due to the "movability" issue of the structure in question. Although there is no case law directly on point regarding the depreciable life of a portable dock structure, a strong argument can be made based on previous case law. From previous cases, we can infer our conclusion from a consistent method of analysis on "inherently permanent" structures.

ANALYSIS: Initially, this type of structure appears to be a "building or structural component" as defined in IRC section 48 (a) (1) (E) and Reg. 1.48-11 as follows:

- The term "Section 1245 Property" means tangible property other than a building and its structural components.

- The term "building" means any structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls, and usually covered by a roof, the purpose of which is to provide working office, parking, display, or sales space. The term, for example, includes structures such as factory and office buildings, warehouses, barns, and garages.

- The term "structural components" includes such parts of a building as walls, partitions, floors, and ceilings, as well as any permenant coverings such as paneling, tilting, windows and doors.

However, further analysis would allow such a movable structure to be classified as tangible personal property based on tax court cases addressing the "movability" issue. The primary fact in determining whether or not certain property is a building or tangible personal property is based on whether the property was "inherently permanent".

"Inherently permenant" means the fashion in which the property is affixed to the land and how permanently it is designed to remain movable. In Film N' Photos, Inc. V. Commissioner [Dec.35,125 (M)], Fox Photo, Inc. V. Commissioner [Dec.46,709 (M)] and Minot Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. [71-1 USTC 9131] the court considered the following six-part test of Whiteco Industries, Inc. V. Commissioner [Dec.33,594] regarding the movability of a structure.

1. Is the property capable of being moved and has it in fact been moved?

2. Is the property designed or constructed to remain perfectly in place?

3. Are there circumstances which tend to show the expected or intended length of affixation, i.e., are there circumstances which show that the property may or will have to be moved?

4. How substantial a job is removal of the property and how time consuming is it? Is it readily movable?

5. How much damage will the property sustain upon its removal?

6. What is the manner of affixation of the property to the land?

In the above cases, the court's decision is based not on movability alone, but on a determination that the structures were readily movable and constructed in anticipation of being moved unlike the permanency of erecting a usual building.

SUMMARY: Although the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations do not specifically address the class lives or depreciation of "movable buildings and structures," previous court cases do allow such types of property to be classified as tangible personal property if the property substantially meets the six-part test of Whiteco Industries, Inc. V. Commissioner [Dec.33,594].

Furthermore, Rev.Proc. 87-56, which outlines MACRS class lives and recovery periods, does not address any movable property of this description. In order to determine the appropriate class life and recovery period for MACRS porposes, the taxpayer can look to Rev.Proc. 87-56 which addresses "Personal Property with No Class Life" in which it allows a seven year life under the General Depreciation System (MACRS) and a twelve year life under the Alternative Depreciation System (AMT & ACE).