Cost Segregation Benchmarks and Statistics: 31.1% Median in 61 Published Studies

By CostSegregationMatch · Updated October 2026

In 61 published cost segregation studies, the median share allocated to 5-, 7- and 15-year property was 31.1% of study basis, with land left out. That is the middle result in CostSegregationMatch's analysis of studies from five firms, October 2026. The full table shows each case, its source and any source conflict.

These cost segregation benchmarks come from studies the firms chose to publish. Read them as reported examples, not a national average.

What do published cost segregation studies show, by property type?

Across 61 published studies, the share of study basis allocated to 5-, 7- and 15-year property had a median of 31.1%. By property type, medians ran from 20.5% for offices (5 studies) to 46.7% for restaurants (3 studies). Types with fewer than three studies are shown as single results, not medians.

Source: CostSegregationMatch analysis of 61 provider-published studies and of benchmark ranges published by FreeCostSeg, Cost Seg Smart, SMF Cost Segregation Advisors, Overline, KBKG and CSSI. All sources checked October 6, 2026. Every study is listed with its link in Table 2. †Buford’s 88.7% uses published dollar classes; its residual has conflicting long-life labels. The Washington, DC home is not confirmed as a rental, so the adjacent rental bands are context only. These broad benchmark groups have different source labels and cost pools; they are not exact matches to each study.

Three words do most of the work on this page, so here they are once.

Study basis is the pile of cost a study divides up, with land left out because land cannot be depreciated. It can include construction, improvements or furnishings, so it is not always the purchase price minus land (IRS Publication 946).

Tax life is how many years the tax rules give you to write a cost off. Under the IRS’s general depreciation system, residential rental property generally uses 27.5 years, and nonresidential real property generally uses 39. Carpet, appliances and some dedicated wiring can have shorter lives. Eligible land improvements, such as parking lots, fences and landscaping, generally use 15 years (IRS Publication 946).

Short-life allocation is the part of the study basis that a study puts in those 5-, 7- and 15-year groups. Put $300,000 of a $1,000,000 basis in those groups and the share is 30%. It describes the published split; it does not always measure a new change from an earlier tax return.

Now put the two right-hand columns of Table 1 side by side. Three things jump out.

• Restaurants ran above the three benchmark tables reviewed. All 3 studies came in between 45.1% and 57.3%. The highest restaurant band in those tables stops at 44%; the source types and cost pools differ.
• Offices had the lowest type median. The 5 studies landed between 18.1% and 30.0%, with a median of 20.5%. The low-rise / general office benchmark tables reviewed span 16%–38%.
• Two industrial cases ran above the shared warehouse band. Three tables reviewed publish the exact same range for warehouse and industrial property, 15%–28%. Two of the 3 industrial studies here came in higher, at 31.1% and 34.1%. One is a distribution property and one is a manufacturing center.

Pick a property type below to see only its studies and its published benchmark ranges.

What percentage does a cost segregation study reclassify?

The median short-life allocation was 31.1% across 61 published studies from five firms. Half of the studies fell between 23.9% and 36.8%. The lowest was 11.9% and the highest was 88.7%; the highest case’s source has a conflicting long-life label, shown below.

"Reclassify" just means move a cost from the slow group to a fast one. And "median" means the middle: line the 61 results up from smallest to largest and take the one in the center. Here it is the 31st result: the Jacksonville retail property at 31.1% after rounding. With an even count there are two in the center, so you average them.

Why the middle and not the average? One giant result can drag an average around. The median is less affected by an extreme result. (The plain average here is 32.9%, so in this case they nearly agree.)

Source: each row links to the page or brochure where the provider published the study. Dollar-based shares are CostSegregationMatch’s division of the published amounts; Capstan and Seneca rows use printed percentages. All rows checked October 6, 2026. A dash means a class or date was not separately reported, not zero. “Sum” means we reconstructed the denominator from published depreciable class dollars. Dates are labelled by what they mean; a study or planning year is not an in-service date. Rounded class shares may not add to the rounded total. The CSV keeps the source values, basis origin, calculation and full notes.

Look at the top and bottom of that table. The lowest result, 11.9%, is a brand-new 27-story apartment tower in a city. The brochure itself explains the small land-improvement share: the urban setting has little land to improve. At 57.3% sits a fast-food restaurant in Manning, South Carolina, with $664,605.32 in 5-year property and $649,068.16 in 15-year property.

Same allocation question. Very different buildings.

What source conflicts remain?

The 31.1% median survives the source-label check. Leave out the Washington, DC home and Buford storage case, and the remaining 59 cases still have a 31.1% median after rounding.

• † Long-life labels: the DC source calls a residential home’s remaining cost 39-year property. Buford’s residual heading says 27.5 years while its text says 39. Both labels are outside our 5-, 7- and 15-year numerator. We report the published allocation and do not validate either tax classification. Nashville’s condo also uses a 39-year residual; its rental use is not stated.
• ‡ Seneca: the original Waverly case prints 19.77% plus 3.99%, or 23.76%. It also prints $1,403,836 divided by a $5,891,061 improvement cost, which gives 23.83%. Both round to 23.8%, but they are different source claims. We retain the printed class percentages and show both calculations in the CSV.
• § Turlock: its opening component percentages conflict with the later table. The class dollars and later table agree, so our shares use the dollars.
• ¶ CSSI: some page labels conflict with the dedicated price field. We use the dedicated field when its class table supports it, and keep the other amounts in the CSV. The medical case CSSI-29 also says 100% bonus in its narrative and 60% in its card; neither rate is used in the allocation math.

These are checks of published summaries. They are not checks of the underlying tax returns.

Is the "20% to 40%" rule of thumb right?

It covered 43 of the 61 published studies (70%) in this collection. 6 came in under 20%, and 12 came in over 40%. That leaves 18 cases outside the band; this selected collection does not test whether the rule is right for the wider market.

Source: CostSegregationMatch analysis of 61 provider-published studies, checked October 6, 2026.

You'll see "20% to 40%" all over this topic. KBKG's overview page says that share of a property's parts can be written off faster "on average." CSSI's service page says the parts that qualify may be 20%–40% of a building's value. Neither page shows a dataset, a count or a date behind the figure, and we could not trace it to a first source.

So think of it the way you’d think of a paint tin’s coverage estimate. Handy for planning. Not a measurement of your wall.

One caution about our own count. A provider's 20%–40% may be measured against a different pile of cost than the studies in Table 2. This count shows where published studies land next to the number. It doesn't prove the rule right or wrong.

Why do providers publish different benchmarks for the same property type?

The tables use different methods. In 7 of 15 property comparison groups, at least two published ranges do not overlap at all. For condos, one range is 10%–17% and another is 33%–40%; the sources also differ in property scope.

Source: CostSegregationMatch comparison of FreeCostSeg (Modern CFO), version 2026.1.0; Cost Seg Smart; SMF Cost Segregation Advisors; and Overline. Each cell is that provider's lowest low and highest high for the type. Labels don’t match perfectly: one provider’s “5–10 units” sits next to another’s “5+ units.” Cost Seg Smart’s combined “Condo / townhome” row appears in both named groups, without becoming a second source record. SMF’s condo band is interior-only and its cost pool can include renovations. Cost Seg Smart includes 5-, 7- and 15-year assets; the other three tables describe 5- and 15-year assets. These are comparisons of published bands, not tests of identical properties. All checked October 6, 2026. FreeCostSeg data: Modern CFO Cost Segregation Allocation Benchmarks, version 2026.1.0, maintained by Matthew Gigantelli, ASCSP M009-25, licensed CC BY 4.0. We grouped source rows into publisher envelopes; the combined condo/townhome band is shown in both groups.

Read the condo row again. Apply the two published bands to the same assumed $400,000 depreciable basis: one gives $40,000 to $68,000. The other gives $132,000 to $160,000. The top of the first doesn’t reach the bottom of the second. This is a math comparison, not two estimates for an actual condo; the sources use different scopes.

Only one row has identical endpoints across its sources: warehouses. All three tables reviewed print 15%–28%.

Here is what each publisher says its numbers are:

• FreeCostSeg (Modern CFO) lists 45 property types and lets anyone download them. A companion page describes the set as a calculator configuration built on expert judgment, with no study-level records included in the public workbook.
• Cost Seg Smart says its ranges come from its own delivered studies where it has enough of a property type to measure, and from model runs otherwise. The page doesn't say which rows are which.
• SMF Cost Segregation Advisors says its bands are its "v15" assumptions.
• Overline says its ranges come from a database of more than 1,000 completed studies. The cited page does not supply those records.

One more wrinkle. The Overline article dated January 2026 currently lists high-rise apartments at 30%–40%. Its separate benchmarks page, dated March 2026, describes the FreeCostSeg configuration; that dataset currently lists them at 16%–22%. These are different published reference sets. The pages do not explain their relationship, and their article dates do not prove when each range first appeared.

None of this makes a benchmark useless. A range tells you whether a quote is in the neighborhood. It can't tell you the address.

Why can two honest percentages for the same property look so different?

Because a percentage depends on the pile of cost you divide by. One published Utah warehouse study moved $3,246,500. That is 31.1% of the $10,455,000 study basis and 26.4% of the $12,300,000 purchase price. Same dollars, two honest percentages.

So before you compare any two numbers, ask one question: percent of what?

The second trap is scope. A study of a whole property and a study of just a renovation are measuring different things.

Source: Capstan Tax Strategies, Retail Properties brochure (2024) and Auto Dealerships brochure (2025), checked October 6, 2026. Shares are the sums of the percentages Capstan printed for 5-year property, 15-year land improvements and 15-year qualified improvement property.

The two percentages do not show that the mall got better at cost segregation. The second study covered about $2.7 million of renovations, and the brochure puts 60% of that cost in 15-year qualified improvement property, or QIP. QIP covers eligible interior improvements made by the taxpayer after a nonresidential building first enters service; not all interior work qualifies (IRS Publication 946). The first covered an $83.6 million mall, walls and all.

That is why this page counts only whole-property studies in its medians. Renovation-only results are in the download, marked, and left out of the math.

Which properties land far above the usual range?

Car washes and gas stations. One published study of each put 100% of reported depreciable cost in 5- and 15-year property, and a published campground study put 75.5%. A second car wash case was 71.3%, while a combined gas station and car wash was 100%. We report these five special-use cases apart from the 61 and never mix them into a median.

Source: Engineered Tax Services and Cost Segregation Guys case pages linked in each row, checked October 6, 2026. For Athens, the 15-year column combines two separately printed classes (38.30% and 20.36%). Loxahatchee also combines two 15-year classes (49.36% and 22.40%). “Sum” denotes a reconstructed denominator. A dash is unreported, not zero.

Picture the gas station in these source pages: a canopy, fuel equipment, paving and a store. The Athens, Lytle and Loxahatchee allocations show no long-life class. The Las Vegas car wash does, with $390,900 in 39-year property. At the Farmington campground, the source puts 68.8% in 15-year site assets.

Do published cost segregation case studies add up?

Of 43 cases with published class dollars and a separately stated comparison amount, 36 fell within our 0.5% add-up tolerance and 7 fell outside it. We left those 7 out of every median. The 0.5% cutoff is our editorial screening rule, not an IRS standard.

The check is simple. Add the published 5-year, 7-year, 15-year and long-life amounts. Compare the total with the basis the page states. We do not call a total reconstructed from those same parts an independent check. Twelve cases have reconstructed totals, and 21 have no full class-dollar table.

Source: CSSI case pages linked in each row, checked October 6, 2026. Class dollars are shown as published; totals and gaps are our calculations. †CSSI-04 uses the narrative amount for the displayed gap. Its dedicated “Purchase Price (Less Land)” field instead says $1,248,883; neither figure reconciles with the $3,687,845 class total. Its acquisition and service dates also conflict. Other rows use the dedicated price-less-land field. Providers can send a correction with evidence and we will update the row.

We cannot tell from the pages what caused these gaps. One page shows a $4,015,000 price over parts that add to exactly $4,105,000. The two printed totals differ by $90,000. Passing the tolerance is not the same as matching exactly: 9 of the 22 counted CSSI cases also have smaller gaps, all kept in the CSV.

Still, the lesson travels. A percentage on a web page is a summary. The study's full schedule, the list of every asset with its cost and tax life, is the real thing. Ask for it.

A second check matters: separating a deduction from tax savings. A deduction lowers taxable income. Multiplying a usable deduction by an assumed tax rate gives a simple tax-value illustration. A Capstan storage brochure lists "1st Year Tax Savings: $3,350,700" on a $9,180,000 basis where 36.5% was allocated to short-life property. Multiply those two and you get $3,350,700, the full short-life allocation. That equality does not verify the brochure’s tax-saving label. A trade-group blog post describes a $15 million office building with about $3 million of first-year depreciation and reports $2.6 million of "tax savings." It does not show the tax calculation behind that figure, so we do not count it as verified tax savings.

Does a bigger percentage mean bigger tax savings?

Not by itself. A 31.1% share means 31.1% of the study basis is allocated to shorter tax lives. It is not a 31.1% tax cut. What you save depends on your tax rate, on whether you can use the deduction this year, and on what the study costs.

Say you buy a building with a $1,000,000 study basis, and a study allocates 31.1% to shorter tax lives. That’s $311,000. This illustration uses the rounded sample median; it is not an estimate for that building.

If those costs were otherwise included in a 39-year building basis, $311,000 would produce about $8,000 of depreciation in a full year. The first and last years use special timing rules (IRS Publication 946). Correctly classified short-life costs can be deducted far sooner. Current law provides permanent 100% bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired and placed in service after January 19, 2025. If all $311,000 qualifies and the owner claims it, the full amount can be deducted in year one.

If the owner can use the full deduction at one assumed federal tax rate, its tax value is $115,070 at 37%, or $74,640 at 24%. Those figures come before subtracting depreciation otherwise available and the study fee. They are not the extra savings caused by a study.

Three things keep that from being a promise. Cost segregation mainly changes when eligible costs are deducted. Rules on passive losses can make you wait to use the benefit. And a later sale at a gain can trigger depreciation recapture, which can make part of the gain ordinary income. That’s a conversation for your tax preparer.

The study fee is the other half of the math. You can compare published study offers to see what studies cost before you ask for a quote.

Why do these numbers matter more now?

The law signed July 4, 2025 restored permanent 100% bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired and placed in service after January 19, 2025 (IRS Notice 2026-11). For property that qualifies, a larger short-life allocation can mean a larger first-year deduction. Older acquisitions and other ineligible property need different treatment.

That raises the stakes on the percentage in a sales pitch. In an illustration where the full short-life amount qualifies for 100% bonus, a calculator that says 35% when the finished study says 22% overstates that short-life bonus deduction on a $1,000,000 basis by $130,000. The older studies in Table 2 show why this is new: CSSI's own case pages list bonus rates of 60% and 80% for properties placed in service in 2024 and 2023.

What does the IRS say about benchmark percentages?

The IRS audit guide does not set a fixed approved allocation percentage. Publication 5653, page 32, revised February 2025, describes a "rule of thumb" approach that sets short-life property as a fixed percent of cost from industry averages, gives 40% for a manufacturing plant as its example, and tells examiners to view it with caution because it lacks support.

The same guide says it is not an official statement of the law. It is a manual for IRS examiners. But it tells you what an examiner will want to see: the records behind each cost, not a percentage that worked for someone else.

So use the numbers on this page as context for a quote. Don’t use a benchmark as the support for an asset’s tax treatment.

What happened when a study went to court?

In its summary of AmeriSouth XXXII, Ltd. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2012-67), the IRS guide puts dryer vents and dryer gas lines in the personal-property category. It puts water systems, sewer systems and kitchen vent hoods in the real-property category.

The guide’s summary also lists site preparation and earthwork as nondepreciable. These are asset classifications from one case, not a standard percentage for apartment buildings.

One case from one complex doesn’t set a benchmark. It does show why each asset’s treatment needs its own support.

How did we build this?

We read the provider case pages, brochures and benchmark tables linked below. This is a selected collection, not a census of every published study. All included sources were checked on October 6, 2026.

What we collected. 76 case records: 29 from CSSI, 23 from Engineered Tax Services, 20 from Capstan Tax Strategies, one from Seneca Cost Segregation and three from Cost Segregation Guys. And 79 benchmark ranges from six publishers.

What counts. A case is counted in the medians if it describes a whole-property study, its denominator is a depreciable cost pool with land left out, and it gives a usable short-life allocation. Construction, furnishings and operating equipment stay in the cost pool where the source includes them. A complete dollar table with a stated basis must fall within our 0.5% tolerance. We also accept printed class percentages and reconstructed denominators, with their limits marked. That left 61.

What doesn’t count, and why. 7 cases outside our 0.5% add-up tolerance. Five special-use sites: two car washes, a gas station, a combined gas station and car wash, and a campground. Two renovation-only studies and one that blends a purchase with a renovation. All 15 are in the download with the reason marked.

The math. Where a provider printed class dollars, we divided the 5-, 7- and 15-year dollars by the study basis. When no separate total was stated, we summed the published depreciable classes to reconstruct it. Where the usable breakdown was percentages (Capstan and Seneca), we added them. Seneca’s separate total-dollar conflict stays flagged. Disclosed 15-year QIP is included, not silently dropped. Each study counts once, whether it’s a $370,000 rental or a $147 million tower. Medians use unrounded calculations and are shown to one decimal; exact halves round up. The middle half uses inclusive quartiles.

To check our work. Open the case file, keep the rows where status is counted, sort short_life_share_exact, and take the 31st value. You’ll get 31.081774489, which rounds to 31.1. For full precision, recompute each row from its calculation and source inputs; the stored share keeps nine decimal places. The middle half runs from the 16th to the 46th sorted values, or 23.9% to 36.8% after rounding.

The benchmark comparison. We keep all 79 source rows. For each comparison group, we take each publisher’s lowest low and highest high. A group has a non-overlapping pair if one publisher’s low is greater than another’s high. Fifteen groups have at least two publishers; seven have such a pair. The CSV keeps the original labels, group membership, source method and cost pool. One combined condo/townhome source row belongs to both named groups but counts once among the 79 rows.

We did not visit any property, buy any study or see any tax return. For how we handle provider facts across the site, see how we compare study offers.

Which other cases are outside the median?

Three cost pools are outside the whole-property comparison: two renovation-only studies and one combined purchase-and-renovation study. Their published shares remain in the download.

Source: linked Capstan brochures, checked October 6, 2026. These records do not enter any property-type or overall median.

What does this data show, and what doesn't it?

It shows what five firms chose to publish and whether those numbers hold together. It does not show a national average, and it can't predict your property's result.

• These are picked examples. Firms choose what they publish. This collection cannot tell us how unpublished studies differ.
• The firm matters. CSSI’s 22 counted studies had a median of 26.0%. Capstan’s 17 had 30.0%. Engineered Tax Services’ 19 had 39.0%. The firms studied different mixes of properties, so this is not a ranking. But it means the overall median would shift if the mix of firms did.
• Small groups. A median of three restaurants is three restaurants.
• Mixed dates. The studies carry dates from 2017 to 2026, and those dates mix purchase, in-service and study years.
• What's in the basis varies. Some studies include furniture and equipment bought with the property. That can raise the short-life share.
• Published summaries, not full reports. We checked the arithmetic on what each firm printed. We did not see the engineering reports behind it.
• No IRS approval. Nothing here says the IRS accepted any of these studies.

The standards behind those calls are in our editorial standards.

If you're checking a quote against these numbers, Find My Cost Seg Provider lays out what each study option includes and the questions to ask before you pay.

How do you cite this page?

Keep the count, the scope and the date with the number: "31.1% median across 61 provider-published studies, CostSegregationMatch, October 2026."

CostSegregationMatch. "Cost Segregation Benchmarks and Statistics: 31.1% Median in 61 Published Studies." Updated October 2026. https://costsegregationmatch.com/research/cost-segregation-benchmarks/

You may reuse CostSegregationMatch’s original calculations and chart design with credit by name; underlying source material keeps its own rights and terms, and reused FreeCostSeg data must retain its CC BY 4.0 attribution shown under Table 4 and in the download.

Where can you download the data?

Two free files, no form and no email:

• cost-segregation-case-results.csv has all 76 case records: the 61 counted studies and the 15 that are marked and left out.
• cost-segregation-published-benchmarks.csv has all 79 published benchmark ranges with what each publisher says they are based on.

The charts are free to download too: published study results and published benchmark ranges. Each carries its source line.

Questions people ask

What percentage of a building can be reclassified in a cost segregation study?

The median short-life allocation was 31.1% across 61 published studies from five firms, with results from 11.9% to 88.7% of study basis with land left out. The highest case has a conflicting long-life label; the source flags explain it. Separate car wash and gas station cases each reported 100%.

What is the average cost segregation percentage?

In this set of 61 published studies, the median was 31.1% and the plain average was 32.9%. Both come from studies firms chose to publish. This collection does not establish a national average.

Is 20% to 40% a realistic estimate?

43 of the 61 published studies fell in that band. 6 came in under 20% and 12 came in over 40%. That describes this selected collection; it does not make 20%–40% an estimate for a particular property.

Which property types get the highest percentages?

The special-use examples include a car wash and a gas station at 100% and a campground at 75.5%. Among the ordinary-property groups with at least three cases, restaurants had the highest median, 46.7%. That is three published restaurant cases, not an industry target.

Why do cost segregation calculators give different answers for the same property?

The reviewed tables use different methods, labels and cost pools. In 7 of 15 comparison groups, at least two published ranges do not overlap at all. For condos, one range is 10%–17% and another is 33%–40%.

Is it worth it to do cost segregation?

A percentage can't answer that alone. It depends on the study fee, your tax rate, and whether you can use the deductions now. An illustration using the 31.1% sample median allocates $311,000 of a $1 million study basis to shorter tax lives; your tax preparer can tell you what a supported deduction is worth in your situation.

What are the rules for cost segregation bonus depreciation in 2026?

IRS Notice 2026-11 describes permanent 100% bonus depreciation for qualified property acquired and placed in service after January 19, 2025, subject to eligibility rules and elections. A study’s date alone does not meet the acquisition test. Check the property’s dates and treatment with a tax preparer.

Can I do cost segregation on a building I bought years ago?

Providers publish studies like that. One study in this set looked back at a mall first built in the 1970s, and several CSSI case studies apply a study years after the property was placed in service (self-storage and office cases). A tax preparer should confirm what filing your situation needs.

Does the IRS approve these percentages?

The IRS audit guide does not approve a fixed benchmark share. It tells examiners to view studies built on industry-average percentages with caution when they lack support. A benchmark can help frame a quote; it does not support an asset’s tax treatment.

Where does this data come from?

The allocations come from providers’ case pages and brochures, checked October 6, 2026. The benchmark bands come from the publishers named in the second file. IRS publications support the tax definitions and rules. Every data row has its source and check date, and both files are free to download.

Sources

1. Internal Revenue Service. Cost Segregation Audit Techniques Guide, Publication 5653 (Rev. 2-2025). https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5653.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
2. Internal Revenue Service. News release on Notice 2026-11, guidance on the permanent 100% additional first year depreciation deduction. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/treasury-irs-issue-guidance-on-the-additional-first-year-depreciation-deduction-amended-as-part-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill (checked October 6, 2026)
3. Internal Revenue Service. Notice 2026-11 (PDF). https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-26-11.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
4. CSSI. Published case studies, cost segregation. https://cssiservices.com/services/cost-segregation/ (checked October 6, 2026)
5. CSSI. Published case studies, multifamily. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/multifamily/ (checked October 6, 2026)
6. CSSI. Published case studies, self storage. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/self-storage/ (checked October 6, 2026)
7. CSSI. Published case studies, airbnb short term rental. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/airbnb-short-term-rental/ (checked October 6, 2026)
8. CSSI. Published case studies, hotels motels. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/hotels-motels/ (checked October 6, 2026)
9. CSSI. Published case studies, auto dealership. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/auto-dealership/ (checked October 6, 2026)
10. CSSI. Published case studies, industrial warehouse. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/industrial-warehouse/ (checked October 6, 2026)
11. CSSI. Published case studies, office. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/office/ (checked October 6, 2026)
12. CSSI. Published case studies, medical. https://cssiservices.com/service/cost-segregation/medical/ (checked October 6, 2026)
13. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Car wash, Athens, GA. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-car-wash-in-athens-ga/ (checked October 6, 2026)
14. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Auto service facility, Richardson, TX. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/cost-segregation-analysis-auto-service-facility-richardson-tx/ (checked October 6, 2026)
15. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Assisted living, Sandy, OR. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/cost-segregation-analysis-assissted-living-sandy-oregon/ (checked October 6, 2026)
16. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Campground, Farmington, PA. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/cost-segregation-campground-farmington-pa/ (checked October 6, 2026)
17. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Gas station, Lytle, TX. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-gas-station-in-lytle-tx/ (checked October 6, 2026)
18. Seneca Cost Segregation. Blog case study: Waverly Townhomes, 35 units, Albany, OR. https://www.senecacostseg.com/feeds/blog/remote-cost-segregation-study (checked October 6, 2026)
19. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: School / Pre-School Facility, Cape Coral, FL. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-of-a-pre-school-in-cape-coral-florida/ (checked October 6, 2026)
20. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Apartment building, Chicago, IL. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-an-apartment-building-in-chicago-il/ (checked October 6, 2026)
21. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Multi-family apartment complex, Boerne, TX. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-multi-family-apartment-complex-in-boerne-texas/ (checked October 6, 2026)
22. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Standalone restaurant, Sunnyvale, CA. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-standalone-restaurant-in-sunnyvale-california/ (checked October 6, 2026)
23. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Office highrise, New York, NY. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-an-office-highrise-in-new-york-ny/ (checked October 6, 2026)
24. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Self-storage facility, Sebring, FL. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-self-storage-facility-in-sebring-florida/ (checked October 6, 2026)
25. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Standalone retail property, Jacksonville, FL. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-retail-building-in-jacksonville-fl/ (checked October 6, 2026)
26. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Apartment complex, Ennis, TX. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-an-apartment-complex-in-ennis-texas/ (checked October 6, 2026)
27. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Hotel, Appleton, WI. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-hotel-in-appleton-wisconsin/ (checked October 6, 2026)
28. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Standalone restaurant, Rexburg, ID. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-restaurant-in-rexburg-idaho/ (checked October 6, 2026)
29. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Retail Pharmacy, Turlock, CA. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-for-retail-pharmacy-property-in-turlock-california/ (checked October 6, 2026)
30. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Restaurant – Fast Food, Manning, SC. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/cost-segregation-for-a-fast-food-restaurant-in-manning-south-carolina/ (checked October 6, 2026)
31. Engineered Tax Services. Case study: Standalone retail building, Rapid City, SD. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-retail-building-in-rapid-city-south-dakota/ (checked October 6, 2026)
32. Cost Segregation Guys. Case study: Industrial / distribution, Salt Lake–Utah County corridor, UT. https://costsegregationguys.com/industrial-utah/ (checked October 6, 2026)
33. Capstan Tax Strategies. Brochure: Capstan MultiFamily 2024. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Capstan-MultiFamily-2024.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
34. Capstan Tax Strategies. Brochure: Capstan Retail Properties 2024. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Capstan-Retail-Properties-2024.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
35. Capstan Tax Strategies. Brochure: Capstan Hospitality Properties 2024. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Capstan-Hospitality-Properties-2024.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
36. Capstan Tax Strategies. Brochure: Self Storage Cost Segregation Profile 4.22. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Self-Storage-Cost-Segregation-Profile-4.22.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
37. Capstan Tax Strategies. Brochure: Capstan Auto Dealerships 2025. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Capstan-Auto-Dealerships-2025.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
38. FreeCostSeg (Modern CFO). Cost Segregation Allocation Benchmarks, version 2026.1.0, CC BY 4.0. https://freecostseg.com/resources/cost-segregation-benchmarks/ (checked October 6, 2026)
39. Overline. “Cost Segregation Allocation Benchmarks by Property Type,” March 18, 2026. https://overlineiq.com/blog/cost-segregation-benchmarks-8000-studies (checked October 6, 2026)
40. Overline. “How Much Does Cost Segregation Actually Save? Real Data from 1,000+ Studies,” January 12, 2026. https://overlineiq.com/blog/how-much-does-cost-segregation-save (checked October 6, 2026)
41. Cost Seg Smart. “Cost Segregation Benchmarks.” https://costsegsmart.com/cost-segregation-benchmarks/ (checked October 6, 2026)
42. SMF Cost Segregation Advisors. “Cost Segregation Study ROI Benchmarks by Property Type and Price (2026),” July 2026. https://www.smfcostseg.com/resource-center/articles/cost-segregation-study-roi-benchmarks-2026 (checked October 6, 2026)
43. KBKG. “Cost Segregation” overview page. https://www.kbkg.com/costsegregation (checked October 6, 2026)
44. American Society of Cost Segregation Professionals. “Cost Segregation Case Studies,” September 10, 2024. https://www.ascsp.org/cost-segregation-case-studies (checked October 6, 2026)
45. Internal Revenue Service. Publication 946, How To Depreciate Property (2025); land, general recovery periods, QIP and timing conventions. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946 (checked October 6, 2026)
46. Internal Revenue Service. Publication 925, Passive Activity and At-Risk Rules (2025); passive losses and carryovers. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p925 (checked October 6, 2026)
47. Internal Revenue Service. Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets (2025); depreciation recapture. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p544 (checked October 6, 2026)
48. Seneca Cost Segregation. Original Waverly Townhomes featured case; cost of improvements and published allocation. https://www.senecacostseg.com/case-studies-multi-family/ (checked October 6, 2026)
49. FreeCostSeg (Modern CFO). Benchmark methodology, attribution and license. https://freecostseg.com/resources/cost-segregation-benchmarks/methodology/ (checked October 6, 2026)
50. Cost Seg Smart. Companion benchmark explanation; depreciable-basis definition. https://costsegsmart.com/blog/cost-segregation-benchmarks/ (checked October 6, 2026)
51. Engineered Tax Services. Condominium, Nashville, TN. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-condominium-in-nashville-tn/ (checked October 6, 2026)
52. Engineered Tax Services. Dental clinic, Grand Prairie, TX. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-dental-clinic/ (checked October 6, 2026)
53. Engineered Tax Services. Residential home, Washington, DC. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-residential-home-in-washington-dc/ (checked October 6, 2026)
54. Engineered Tax Services. Self-storage facility, Buford, GA. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-self-storage-facility-in-buford-ga/ (checked October 6, 2026)
55. Engineered Tax Services. Gas station / car wash, Loxahatchee Groves, FL. https://engineeredtaxservices.com/case-studies/case-study-cost-segregation-analysis-for-a-gas-station-carwash-in-loxahatchee-groves-florida/ (checked October 6, 2026)
56. Capstan Tax Strategies. Newly constructed hotel, 323 rooms, 23 stories. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Hotel-Case-Study-2020-V1.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
57. Capstan Tax Strategies. Newly constructed apartment community, 256 units. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Multi-family-Residential-Case-Study_FINAL.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
58. Capstan Tax Strategies. Office building acquisition, two stories. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Office-Building-Case-Study-2020-V1.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
59. Capstan Tax Strategies. Self-storage new construction, 875 units. https://capstantax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Self-Storage-Case-Study-2020-V1.pdf (checked October 6, 2026)
60. Cost Segregation Guys. Car wash acquisition, Las Vegas, NV. https://costsegregationguys.com/car-wash-nevada/ (checked October 6, 2026)
61. Cost Segregation Guys. Furnished single-family short-term rental, Phoenix metro, AZ. https://costsegregationguys.com/short-term-rental-arizona/ (checked October 6, 2026)