Deliverable reference · 84-page illustrative sample

What is inside an adult day care cost segregation report

The full structure of the deliverable, section by section, with the numbers from one illustrative sample study on a 7,000 SF adult day health centre. Every figure on this page is transcribed from that report, so you can hold your own study against it.

What this is. An illustrative sample report on a representative adult day health centre, watermarked ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE on every one of its 84 pages. There is no client in it and no real address. The interior images in it are AI-generated representative images, and the report says so on the page they appear on: they are not photographs of the subject property and nothing in the schedule is evidenced by them. On a live engagement your own photographs are incorporated per IRS Pub 5653 Chapter 4. There is no photography of a real centre. It is not a customer's study, redacted or otherwise, and we do not publish one without that customer's named approval. What is real is the method, the section structure, the authorities cited and the schedules: those are what a paying engagement receives.

The property the sample is built on

The most common real form of this type: a professional office building converted to a day health programme, rather than a purpose-built facility. Note the occupancy line — it is not a detail, it is the classification the entire study rests on.

Property type Adult day care and adult day health centre, converted professional office
Building area 7,000 SF
Year built 2004
Acquired and placed in service June 2025
Program Nurse station and medication room, assisted bathing room, therapy and activity rooms, dining room with serving line, commercial kitchen, salon station, secure entry, secure outdoor courtyard, transport van loading zone
Occupancy Day programme. Nobody sleeps in the building, which is what keeps it nonresidential real property on the 39-year schedule
Declared features None. The sample carries no declared feature list, so the classification is modeled from property type, public records and imagery
Purchase price $1,400,000
Land (not depreciable) $210,000, 15% of purchase price, a statistical estimate from regional market data
Depreciable basis $1,190,000

What the sample allocated, class by class

This is Section 3 of the report. The four class amounts add to the depreciable basis exactly, which is the check to run on any study: if the classes do not reconcile to basis, something has been double counted or dropped.

MACRS class Allocated basis % of basis
5-year personal property
Rev. Proc. 87-56 Cl. 57.0, data cabling Cl. 00.12
Nurse station and medication room casework with locked med storage, hand-wash casework and the charting counter; nurse call, participant monitoring and wander-management; commercial kitchen equipment, casework and the dedicated plumbing, gas and hood exhaust serving it; assisted bathing and spa tub equipment with its dedicated supply and water-tempering connections; dining and activity room carpet and removable resilient flooring; the dining serving-line casework with its warming and refrigeration connections; therapy and activity room equipment mounts, mirrors and dedicated circuits; salon and barber station casework and its dedicated plumbing; secure entry vestibule access control; cameras and remote family-viewing monitoring; low-voltage data, telephone and paging cabling; laundry dedicated plumbing, venting and electrical; removable wall protection; decorative and accent lighting
$161,274 13.6%
7-year personal property
Rev. Proc. 87-56 Cl. 00.11
Dining and activity room furniture, classroom and activity room furniture, office and reception furniture
$31,344 2.6%
15-year land improvements
Rev. Proc. 87-56 Cl. 00.3
Accessible parking and striping, the transport van loading zone and drop-off paving with its bollards and striping, the secure outdoor courtyard walking path, garden beds and wander-secure fencing, site lighting, landscaping and irrigation, sidewalks and exterior paving, exterior monument signage
$86,638 7.3%
39-year real property
IRC §1250 structural components
Shell, roof and foundation, interior partitions, comfort HVAC, general electrical and general plumbing, the bathing room itself with its floor drain, restrooms, fire sprinklers and the fire alarm, general lighting, and the drop-off canopy structure as distinct from the paving under it
$910,744 76.5%
Total depreciable basis $1,190,000 100%
Accelerated property, 5-, 7- and 15-year $279,256 23.5%

Read this as one result, not as a range. This centre reclassified 23.5% of basis, which sits inside the 14–26% of basis we model for the type, and says nothing about where any other centre lands. What carries this one is clinical fit-out rather than site work: the nurse station and medication room, the nurse-call and wander-management system, the assisted bathing equipment, the serving line and the salon station are all present here, and the 15-year bucket is a modest 7.3% because a converted office sits on a parking lot rather than on grounds. A centre with no bathing room and no salon lands lower; one with a large secure courtyard lands higher on the site side. Age, finish level, declared equipment and the land share all move the answer, which is why we model the actual property before quoting anything.

Why an adult day centre reclassifies more than the office it used to be

Because a day health programme puts clinical equipment into a building that was never built for it, and almost all of that equipment is personal property serving the care programme rather than the building. Adult day services fall in asset class 57.0, distributive trades and services, under Rev. Proc. 87-56, so qualifying personal property in the building is 5-year.

Moves off the 39-year schedule

  • Nurse station: casework, locked medication storage, hand-wash casework and the charting counter
  • Monitoring: nurse call, participant monitoring and wander-management — call stations, door alarms, locators
  • Bathing: the lift, the tub and the water-tempering serving them
  • Dining: serving-line casework with its warming and refrigeration connections, plus the commercial kitchen equipment and its dedicated plumbing, gas and hood exhaust
  • Therapy and activity: equipment mounts, mirrors, dedicated circuits
  • Salon: station casework and its dedicated plumbing, where one is present
  • Also: dining and activity room carpet, secure entry access control, cameras, low-voltage cabling (asset class 00.12), laundry connections, removable wall protection, decorative and accent lighting
  • 7-year: dining, activity, classroom, office and reception furniture
  • 15-year: accessible parking, the transport van loading zone and drop-off paving with bollards and striping, the secure courtyard walking path, garden beds and wander-secure fencing, site lighting, landscaping, sidewalks, the monument sign

Stays 39-year

  • Structural shell, foundation and roof
  • Interior partitions
  • Comfort HVAC, general electrical and general plumbing
  • The bathing room itself, with its floor drain — the equipment in it is 5-year, the room is building
  • Restrooms, fire sprinklers and the fire alarm: life safety is part of the building
  • General lighting
  • The drop-off canopy structure, as distinct from the paving under it, which is a 15-year land improvement

Over three quarters of this sample's basis stayed here, which is the ordinary outcome for a converted office and the reason the accelerated figure is roughly a quarter rather than a half.

If you lease the building to an operator, this is your study, not theirs. The landlord depreciates the building, the site work and whatever conveyed with the purchase. The operator depreciates its own equipment and any build-out the operator paid for, which is a leasehold improvement study on the operator's return. If you own both, you get both, and the intake asks what was included in the purchase so nothing is counted twice.

The 84 pages, section by section

Fourteen numbered sections and seven appendices. The page ranges below are this sample's; length scales with the building and with how much documentation an engagement carries.

Section 1

Executive summary

pp. 4 to 26

The headline result, the class-by-class allocation, and the two subsections a CPA reads first: 1.1 Year 1 Tax Impact Analysis and 1.2 Allocation Bridge. This is where the $279,256 of accelerated property and the estimated $291,905 of total first-year depreciation are stated and sourced.

Section 2

Property summary

pp. 27 to 28

The subject property as the study saw it: area, year built, acquisition and placed-in-service dates, the room programme, the land allocation and its source, and the inputs each figure rests on. It also states the classification the whole study turns on: nonresidential real property under IRC §168(e)(2)(B).

Section 3

Cost allocation summary

pp. 29 to 32

The allocation by class and by category, with every principal accelerated component named and priced, and the statement that the component allocations reconcile exactly to the depreciable basis.

Section 4

Detailed component breakdown

pp. 33 to 46

Every identified component with its class life, allocated amount, authority and evidence basis. Includes 4.1 Facilities Summary by CSI Division, 4.2 Indirect Cost Allocation and 4.3 Reconciliation of Costs.

Section 5

Engineering rationale by category

p. 47

Why each category was classified as it was, written per category rather than per line, so the reasoning can be followed without reading the full schedule.

Section 6

MACRS depreciation schedules

pp. 48 to 51

Year-by-year deduction tables for each class, with the bonus treatment applied in the placed-in-service year, formatted to carry onto Form 4562.

Section 7

NPV analysis (illustrative only)

p. 52

The time value of moving the deductions forward, labeled illustrative because it depends on a discount rate and a tax rate the taxpayer supplies.

Section 8

Depreciation recapture considerations

p. 53

What reclassification means on a later sale, including the §1245 treatment of the personal property the study identifies.

Section 9

Sensitivity considerations

p. 54

How the result moves when the inputs move, which is the section that answers whether a different centre would land somewhere else.

Section 10

Methodology and basis of analysis

pp. 55 to 63

The engineering-method cost approach, the data sources used, and the IRS Pub 5653 interview and documentation expectations the study is written against.

Section 11

Legal authority for asset classification

p. 64

The statutory and administrative authority behind each classification position taken in the schedule.

Section 12

Schedule for fixed asset ledger entry

pp. 65 to 67

The result restated in the form a fixed asset ledger wants it, so the classifications can be booked without retyping the schedule.

Section 13

Tax practitioner review considerations

p. 68

The decisions the report deliberately leaves to the CPA, including the filing method: original return, amended or superseding return, or a Form 3115 method change.

Section 14

Conclusion

pp. 69 to 70

The result restated with its limitations, and what would change it.

Section A to F

Appendices

pp. 71 to 84

A, cost derivation summary. A-1, the multiplier ledger, which shows every adjustment applied to a modeled unit cost and why. B, IRS ATG quality elements mapped to where the report addresses each one. C, Rev. Proc. 87-56 and the IRC framework. D, case law and IRS rulings. E, audit documentation and support. F, exhibits and supporting documentation.

What this sample does not contain, and why

There is no §481(a) lookback workpaper in it. The subject property was acquired and placed in service in 2025, so there is no prior-year depreciation to catch up, and the report states plainly that it does not calculate a §481(a) adjustment. A study on a building held for years does add that computation and the Form 3115 reference workpaper, because that is the whole point of a lookback; your CPA prepares and files the Form 3115 itself. Section 13 sets out that filing-method decision. We would rather tell you what is absent than describe a section you would not receive.

What an examiner would look for

The IRS Cost Segregation Audit Techniques Guide, Pub 5653, sets out the principal elements an examiner reviews when a study is challenged. The sample maps to them section by section, and Appendix B does that mapping explicitly rather than leaving it to the reader:

  • Engineering analysis, Sections 5 and 10, the rationale by category and the method it rests on
  • Component-level documentation, Section 4, every component with its class life, allocated amount, authority and evidence basis
  • Cost derivation, Section 4.2 and Appendices A and A-1, indirect cost allocation, the derivation of the unit costs from industry-standard construction cost data, and the ledger of every adjustment applied to them
  • Asset-class mapping, Sections 3 and 11, each position tied to its Rev. Proc. 87-56 class with the authority stated on the line
  • Reconciliation, Section 4.3, the check that the allocated components add back to the depreciable basis
  • Audit documentation and support, Appendices B, D, E and F

Audit support ships with the report and does not expire: the workpaper exhibits, the classification rationale per component, internal technical review, and written answers to your CPA's questions about our methodology. Full scope at /audit-defense/.

Report questions

Is this a real customer's adult day centre study?
No. It is an illustrative sample built on a representative subject property, watermarked ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE on every page. There is no client, no real address, and no photography of a real centre in it. We do not publish a customer's report, redacted or otherwise, without that customer's named approval. The engineering method, the section structure, the authorities cited and the schedules are the ones a paying engagement receives.
Is an adult day centre depreciated like assisted living?
No, and this is the distinction the whole study rests on. An adult day centre is a day programme: participants go home at night, nobody sleeps in the building, and it is therefore nonresidential real property on the 39-year schedule. The sample states that classification in Section 2, under IRC §168(e)(2)(B). Assisted living, memory care, independent living and skilled nursing are residential-occupancy facilities, a different schedule, a different band and a different page. The fit-out differs too: a day centre has no resident rooms, which is where a senior living facility carries most of its furniture and finishes.
Why did this sample reclassify 23.5% when the adult day care page says 14–26% of basis?
Because 23.5% is a result and 14–26% is a modeled band. This is one centre with one set of facts: a 2004 professional office converted to a day health programme, with a nurse station and medication room, an assisted bathing room, a salon station, a dining serving line and a secure courtyard. It has nearly every clinical feature the type can carry, which is why it lands near the top. A converted residence with no bathing room and no salon sits at the floor. The band describes where modeled centres fall; it is not a promise about any one property, and we model the actual property before anything is quoted.
What stays on the 39-year schedule?
Roughly three quarters of the basis, which is the ordinary outcome. The shell, roof and foundation; interior partitions; comfort HVAC, general electrical and general plumbing; the restrooms; fire sprinklers and the fire alarm, because life safety is part of the building; general lighting. Two are worth calling out because owners expect them to move and they do not. The assisted bathing ROOM stays 39-year even though the lift, the tub and the water-tempering serving them are 5-year: the equipment is personal property, the room is building. And the drop-off canopy structure stays 39-year even though the paving under it is a 15-year land improvement.
The sample has an "illustrative invoice assumption" line. What is that?
It is the sample showing what happens when you hand us a document. Two lines in it are priced from an illustrative invoice rather than from a model: the nurse station and participant monitoring equipment, and the dining and activity room furniture. On a real engagement those would be your invoices, and a documented cost is used in place of a modeled one wherever you have one. A document changes what a line costs; it does not change what class the line is in.
How long is the report, and what does a study cost?
This sample runs 84 pages. An adult day centre is priced self-serve from the published specialty commercial matrix, from $2,995 for a building under $1M, on the same ladder as a medical office or a veterinary clinic. You can order one without talking to us, and the price is on the order form before you pay.

See your centre's numbers, not a sample's.

An adult day care study is self-serve: the address, the purchase price and the square footage are enough to start, and the intake asks whether there is a nurse station, a bathing room or a salon. If you converted the building, the conversion invoices replace modeled costs with documented ones.

Adult day care cost segregation · Senior living, if people sleep there · All report examples · Form 3115 walkthrough