@Opus 17 wrote:
My lay opinion is that the work @Candymancan described was not extensive enough to count as restoration (I'm thinking, restoration after a fire or flood), but that can be reviewed by a local expert if they want to claim it.
I agree that a local expert should be consulted to review all of the facts surrounding this scenario.
My opinion would be that Section 1.67-4 could apply in the sense that the costs might not have been incurred if the property were not held in the estate (e.g., @Candymancan indicated that the expenses were incurred "due to the situation of the death"). However, it is difficult to provide a firm opinion without knowledge of all of the relevant facts.
