RJR Nabisco Inc. (Formerly R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc.) and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

                    7.  Conclusion...................................... 59           
               D.  Income Tax Consequences............................. 60            
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
          I.  Introduction                                                            
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of facts filed by the parties, with attached               
          exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference.                        
               Petitioner, a Delaware corporation, maintained its principal           
          office in New York, New York, at the time the petition was filed.           
          II.  Graphic Design Issue                                                   
               A.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Nature of the Dispute                   
               During 1982, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Reynolds), a New               
          Jersey corporation, was a member of the affiliated group.  During           
          that year, Reynolds was engaged in the business of manufacturing            
          and marketing tobacco products.  Reynolds had $3.6 billion of               
          sales in 1982 and, in reporting its income for Federal income tax           
          purposes, claimed a deduction for graphic design and package                
          design expenditures in the amount of $2,196,441 (the disallowed             
          deduction).  Respondent disallowed that deduction on the grounds            
          that petitioner had failed to establish that the disallowed                 
          deduction represented an ordinary and necessary business expense            
          or was otherwise deductible.  (The principal dispute between the            
          parties is whether the disallowed deduction is not a section 162            
          expense because it is a capital expenditure.)                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011