rr-02-9.pdf

Preserve advance releases and the authoritative Internal Revenue Bulletin rendition; directory timestamps are file-publication metadata, not legal effective dates. HTML bulletins begin June 2003; earlier available issues require full PDF parsing.

This collection currently includes the publisher’s available advance-release directory. Historical bulletin renditions are discovered separately; an advance-release record alone does not certify the collection archive complete.

Part I
Section 263A.-- Capitalization and Inclusion in Inventory Costs of Certain Expenses
26 CFR 1.263A-1: Uniform capitalization of costs.
(Also, §§ 42, 167, 168, 263, 446, 481; 1.263(a)-1.)
Rev. Rul. 2002-9
ISSUE
Are “impact fees” incurred by a taxpayer in connection with the construction of a
new residential rental building capitalized costs allocable to the building under
§§ 263(a) and 263A of the Internal Revenue Code?
FACTS
Taxpayer is in the business of developing, owning, and leasing residential rental
property. Taxpayer purchased unimproved land located in County on which Taxpayer
will construct a new residential building that it will rent to tenants. The development
plan submitted by Taxpayer to County indicates that the building is expected to have x
number of rental units. County imposes “impact fees” on new and expanded
development.
Impact fees are one-time charges that are imposed by a state or local
government against new development or expansion of existing development to finance

- 2 -
specific offsite capital improvements for general public use that are necessitated by the
new or expanded development. Generally, impact fees are refundable (in full or in part)
if the new or expanded development ultimately is not constructed as planned.
Taxpayer was required by County to pay various impact fees (for example, for
schools and law enforcement and fire protection facilities) in order to compensate
County for the financial impact of Taxpayer’s new building. These impact fees were
calculated based on Taxpayer’s projection of the number of rental units in, and on the
size of, the building. Taxpayer paid the impact fees when the construction permit for
the building was issued.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Section 263(a) and § 1.263(a)-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations provide that
no deduction is allowed for any amount paid out for new buildings or for permanent
improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any property or estate.
Section 1.263(a)-2(a) provides that capital expenditures include the cost of acquisition,
construction, or erection of buildings, machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures,
and similar property having a useful life substantially beyond the taxable year.
Section 263A provides, in part, that direct costs and a properly allocable portion
of indirect costs of real or tangible personal property produced by a taxpayer must be
capitalized to the property produced. See also § 1.263A-1(a)(3)(ii). Section 263A(g)(1)
provides that the term “produce” includes construct, build, install, manufacture, develop,
or improve. See also § 1.263A-2(a)(1)(i). Property produced may include land,
buildings, land improvements, and other tangible property owned by the taxpayer for
federal income tax purposes. See § 1.263A-2(a)(1)(ii). Section 1.263A-2(a)(3)(i)

- 3 -
provides that any cost required to be capitalized by § 263A must be capitalized
regardless of whether the cost was incurred before, during, or after production.
Section 1.263A-1(e) provides rules for determining the direct and indirect costs
that are required to be capitalized to property produced. Section 1.263A-1(e)(2)(i)
provides that direct costs consist of direct material and direct labor costs. Section
1.263A-1(e)(3)(i) defines indirect costs as all costs other than direct material costs and
direct labor costs. Indirect costs are properly allocable to property produced when the
costs directly benefit, or are incurred by reason of, the performance of production
activities. Indirect costs that are allocable to production activities then must be
allocated among the properties produced. See § 1.263A-1(f).
In Oriole Homes Corp. v. U.S., 705 F.Supp. 1531 (S.D. Fla. 1989), the court held
that road, educational, regional park, and municipal park impact fees required for the
approval and recordation of plats for subdivisions are capital expenditures, to be
capitalized as a development cost and deducted pro rata as each house is sold. In
reaching its holding, the court stated that “the impact fees increased the value of the
subdivisions and secured a benefit which lasted beyond the taxable year in which they
were incurred.” Similarly, the impact fees incurred by Taxpayer resulted in a permanent
improvement or betterment to Taxpayer’s development project. Accordingly, consistent
with Oriole Homes, the impact fees incurred by Taxpayer must be capitalized to the
property produced under § 263(a).
Moreover, because Taxpayer’s development project constitutes production of
property within the meaning of § 263A(g)(1), Taxpayer is required to capitalize under
§ 263A the direct costs and a proper share of the allocable indirect costs associated

- 4 -
with the development. In Von-Lusk v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 207 (1995), the court
held that certain expenses incurred by a real estate developer before actual physical
work began on undeveloped land are subject to § 263A. The court found that the
developer’s activities, such as obtaining building permits and zoning variances,
negotiating permit fees, and similar activities, represent the “first steps in the
development of the property.” The court further noted that the pursuit of building
permits and zoning variances, negotiating permit fees, and similar activities “are
ancillary to actual physical work on the land and are as much a part of a development
project as digging a foundation or completing a structure’s frame. The project cannot
move forward if these steps are not taken.”
The impact fees incurred by Taxpayer are not direct costs within the meaning of
§ 263A because they are neither direct material nor direct labor costs. However, the
impact fees are indirect costs under § 263A because they directly benefit, and are
incurred by reason of, Taxpayer’s production activity. Similar to the costs at issue in
Von-Lusk, the impact fees were assessed by County because of Taxpayer’s plans to
construct the new residential building, and thus are “as much a part of a development
project as digging a foundation or completing a structure’s frame.” Thus, in accordance
with § 1.263A-1(f), Taxpayer must allocate the impact fees to the property produced
based on all the facts and circumstances. Because the impact fees are assessed as a
result of Taxpayer’s plans to construct the building, the amount of the impact fees is
calculated based upon the characteristics of the building, and the impact fees generally
would be refundable if Taxpayer decides not to construct the building as planned, the
impact fees are allocable to the building. Accordingly, the impact fees must be

- 5 -
capitalized under § 263A as indirect costs allocable to the new residential rental
building.
HOLDING
“Impact fees” incurred by a taxpayer in connection with the construction of a new
residential rental building are capitalized costs allocable to the building under
§§ 263(a) and 263A.
APPLICATION
Any change in a taxpayer's treatment of impact fees incurred in connection with
the new construction or expansion of a building to conform with this revenue ruling is a
change in method of accounting to which the provisions of §§ 446 and 481 and the
regulations thereunder apply.
A taxpayer wanting to change the method of accounting for impact fees to
conform with this revenue ruling must follow the automatic change in method of
accounting provisions in Rev. Proc. 2002-9, 2002-3 I.R.B. 327 (or its successor), as
modified and clarified by Announcement 2002-17, 2002-8 I.R.B. ___, with the following
modifications:
(1) If the taxpayer changes its method of accounting for impact fees to conform
with this revenue ruling for the first taxable year ending on or after December 31, 2001,
the scope limitations in section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2002-9 do not apply; and
(2) To assist the Internal Revenue Service in processing changes in method of
accounting under this revenue ruling, and to ensure proper handling, section 6.02(4)(a)
of Rev. Proc. 2002-9 is modified to require that a Form 3115 filed under this revenue
ruling include the statement "Automatic Change Filed Under Rev. Rul. 2002-9." This

- 6 -
statement should be legibly printed or typed on the appropriate line on the Form 3115.
If a taxpayer changes its method of accounting for impact fees to conform with
this revenue ruling, the treatment of impact fees will not be raised as an issue in any
taxable year before the year of change, consistent with the audit protection provision of
section 7.01 of Rev. Proc. 2002-9. If this change in method of accounting is made for
the taxpayer's first taxable year ending on or after December 31, 2001, and the
treatment of impact fees has already been raised as an issue in a taxable year before
the taxpayer's first taxable year ending on or after December 31, 2001, the treatment of
impact fees will not be further pursued.
If a depreciation deduction is allowable under § 167(a) for the building and it is
subject to § 168, the taxpayer must depreciate the impact fees under § 168 as
residential rental property or nonresidential real property (as both are defined in
§ 168(e)(2)), as appropriate, beginning when the newly constructed building or the
expansion of the building is placed in service by the taxpayer. Moreover, for purposes
of § 42, impact fees are included in the eligible basis of a qualified low-income building.
A change in method of accounting for impact fees to conform to this revenue ruling
does not affect the amount of credit that has been allocated under § 42(h)(1) or allowed
for buildings financed with tax-exempt bonds subject to the volume cap as determined
under § 42(h)(4).
EFFECT ON OTHER DOCUMENTS
Rev. Proc. 2002-9 is modified and amplified to include this accounting method
change in section 4 of the APPENDIX.

- 7 -
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal authors of this revenue ruling are Kathleen Reed and Christopher
J. Wilson of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special
Industries). For further information regarding § 42, 167, or 168, contact Gregory Doran
at (202) 622-3040 or Mr. Wilson at (808) 539-2874. For further information regarding
§ 263(a) or 263A, contact Cheryl L. Oseekey at (202) 622-4970. These are not
toll-free calls.