Alondra Industries, Limited, d.b.a. Accent Insulation Company and Subsidiaries, et al. - Page 28

                                         28                                           
               Having disposed of the parties' dispute over the burden of             
          proof with respect to the substantiation of payments, we preface            
          the following discussion with the observation that petitioners              
          have the burden of showing that their payments for rent and                 
          management services were ordinary and necessary business expenses           
          deductible under section 162.  Rule 142(a).                                 
          Issue 2.  Rental Payments                                                   
               Section 162 provides, in pertinent part:                               
                    SEC. 162(a).  In General.--There shall be allowed                 
               as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses                 
               paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on                
               any trade or business, including--                                     
                        *     *     *     *     *     *     *                         
                         (3) rentals or other payments required to be                 
                    made as a condition to the continued use or                       
                    possession, for purposes of the trade or business,                
                    of property to which the taxpayer has not taken or                
                    is not taking title or in which he has no equity.                 
               Excessive rental payments do not constitute ordinary and               
          necessary business expenses and are therefore not deductible.               
          Foyt v. United States, 561 F.2d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1977).                   
          Payments in excess of reasonable rent pursuant to an agreement              
          between closely related parties that is not the product of                  
          arm's-length negotiation are not "required" within the meaning of           


          15(...continued)                                                            
          does reflect the assumption that the challenged amounts were                
          paid, and Fleming v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-165, would               
          provide adequate support for granting corporate petitioners'                
          motion (to the extent that it concerns substantiation of payment)           
          if it had not been mooted.                                                  




Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011