e in having the work done to the roof was to prevent the

leakage and keep her commercial property in operating condition

and not to prolong the life of the property, increase its value,

or make it adaptable to another use.     Petitioner’s expenditure

merely restored her commercial property to one with a roof free

of leaks.   That is why she hired Armstrong and the other

contractors.   The reason why Armstrong sprayed the entire roof

with foam was to protect Armstrong against future liability.           On

this record, we hold that petitioner is entitled to deduct the

expenditure in issue.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                            Decision will be entered

                                       under Rule 155.


               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                      Docket No. 39276

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 575
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )     Filed: August 3, 2012
                                                )
v.                                              )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
JANET PALMA,                                    )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

       Order denying motion to modify judgment of conviction, vacated, and case
       remanded.

       Kohler Law Offices, P.A.; Jay A. Kohler, Idaho Falls, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respond