Court case · 1973
King Radio Corp. v. United States
486 F.2d 1091 (10th Cir. 1973)
U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Cir.
Taxpayer won
Audio summary
A short audio walkthrough of this case: what happened, what the court decided, and why it matters for your study.
The facts
King Radio Corporation built a combined office and production facility of about 25,000 square feet. Part of the building had no fixed floor plan. The company used ceiling-height partitions, glazed partitions, and movable partition systems to arrange the interior and claimed them as personal property for investment tax credit purposes.
What the court decided
The ceiling-height partitions, glazed partitions, and movable partition systems qualified as tangible personal property, not structural components. The 10th Circuit affirmed the taxpayer's refund, following Minot Federal.
Why it matters for your study: This is one of the main authorities for movable interior partitions. It confirms that reconfigurable, non-permanent partitions are personal property and supports moving their cost to a shorter depreciation class.
Parts the case looked at
- ceiling-height partitions
- glazed partitions
- movable partition systems
Where this comes from
King Radio Corporation built a combined office and production building. Part of the space had no fixed floor plan. The company used ceiling-height partitions, glazed partitions, and movable systems to divide the interior as needed.
King Radio claimed the investment tax credit on those partitions, treating them as personal property. The government appealed the district court's refund. The question for the 10th Circuit was whether partitions that could be moved and reconfigured were truly personal property, or whether they were part of the building.
What the court decided
The 10th Circuit agreed with King Radio. The partition systems qualified as tangible personal property. They were not structural components.
The court followed Minot Federal, which had established that pre-manufactured movable partition systems are personal property when they can be detached and relocated without damage. In King Radio's facility, the partitions served that same function. No permanent floor plan meant the space was designed for reconfiguration. That design intent, and the physical ability to move the partitions, brought them out of the building category.
How it shows up in a study
King Radio is cited whenever demountable partition systems, movable office walls, or flexible production dividers appear in a building. It supports moving those costs to the faster personal property class.
The practical test comes from Whiteco: is this partition meant to stay permanently, can it be moved without damage, and how was it designed? King Radio shows one end of the answer. Mallinckrodt, where drywall was nailed in and destroyed on removal, shows the other. A defensible study documents the partition type, how it is fastened, and whether it was designed for reconfiguration.
What it does not mean
King Radio does not say all interior partitions are personal property. The ruling is tied to partitions that can be moved and reconfigured without damaging the building. Permanent drywall construction that is destroyed on removal, as in Mallinckrodt, falls on the structural side.
The case also does not override the Whiteco factors or substitute for a thorough analysis. Each partition system in a study needs its own documented assessment. The result in King Radio supports the argument for movable systems, but the facts of your building's specific partitions always control.
Primary source
Read the official text for yourself, or share it with your advisor.
- Category
- Asset classification
- Outcome
- Taxpayer won
- Applies to
- All property types
- Status
- Vetted
This page explains a tax authority in plain words. It is not tax advice for your situation. The way this authority applies to your property is reviewed by a licensed tax professional. Citation is provided so you or your advisor can read the primary source.