Bruce Selig and Elaine Selig - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          preopening expenses.  Respondent cites Richmond Television Corp.            
          v. United States, 345 F.2d 901, 907 (4th Cir. 1965), vacated and            
          remanded on other issues 382 U.S. 68 (1965), original holding on            
          this issue reaffd. 354 F.2d 410, 411 (4th Cir. 1965), overruled             
          on other grounds NCNB Corp. v. United States, 684 F.2d 285, 289             
          (4th Cir. 1982), for the proposition that preopening expenses are           
          nondeductible:                                                              
               The uniform teaching of  * * * [certain prior] cases is                
               that, even though a taxpayer has made a firm decision                  
               to enter into business and over a considerable period                  
               of time spent money in preparation for entering that                   
               business, he still has not "engaged in carrying on any                 
               trade or business" within the intendment of section                    
               162(a) until such time as the business has begun to                    
               function as a going concern and performed those                        
               activities for which it was organized.  [Fn. refs.                     
               omitted.]                                                              
               We agree with respondent that the expenditures made by the             
          corporation during 1989 and 1990 were nondeductible preopening              
          expenses.  Petitioners have not carried their burden of proving             
          that the corporation had engaged in carrying on any trade or                
          business before or during the years in question.  Although the              
          corporation may have reported gross receipts from the sale of               
          what petitioners characterize as "mostly low cost merchandise"              
          during 1988, such receipts and the corporation's verifiable                 
          expenses for 1988 were allocated by respondent to Scott's Limo.             
          Petitioners agreed to that adjustment.  From those facts, we                
          conclude, and find, that the receipts and expenditures were                 
          incurred in the trade or business of Scott's Limo, not in a trade           





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011