15
that these illustrations do not qualify as the development of
computer software. Petitioner submitted a letter from an
attorney dated December 11, 1992, the topic of which is the
patentability of petitioner's system. Nothing in the letter
indicates that petitioner was developing computer software in
1988 or 1989.
We presume that some of the nutritional information culled
by Akabas found its way into the notebook titled "The Food
Comparison Machine". Nonetheless, petitioner provided no
evidence coupling the various expenditures to any research or
experiment in nutritional science or computer software in 1988 or
1989. Petitioner repeatedly described his activities as the
development of computer software. However, the record does not
support petitioner's characterization of his activities, and his
subjective belief is not determinative. See Mayrath v.
Commissioner, supra at 590-591. We conclude that the
expenditures are not deductible as research or experimental
expenses under section 174. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to
consider whether they were in connection with a trade or business
or whether a proper election was made. We sustain respondent's
determination.
Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)
Respondent determined an addition to tax under section
6651(a)(1) for each year in issue, asserting that petitioner
failed to file timely a Federal income tax return.
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