- 7 -
claim of an amortization deduction in a case involving the
acquisition of land.
Initially, we note that the fact that the bonds involved
herein were tax-exempt bonds does not operate to deprive
petitioner of his claimed amortization deduction. See Gordon v.
Commissioner, supra at 322 n.6 (citing Manufacturers Hanover
Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 431 F.2d 664 (2d Cir. 1970), affg. a
Memorandum Opinion of this Court).5 We further note that there
is no issue as to the amount of petitioner's claimed amortization
deduction if we hold that he is entitled to such deduction.
The basic question is whether or not the transactions were
structured in the right way, i.e., whether they were in fact what
they appear to be in form. See Gordon v. Commissioner, supra;
Hobby v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 980, 985 (1943). This is a
question that the courts have been faced with many times in a
variety of contexts. Compare Cumberland Public Service Corp. v.
Commissioner, 338 U.S. 451 (1950), with Commissioner v. Court
Holding Co., 324 U.S. 331 (1945) (whether a sale was by a
corporation or its shareholders). Compare also Zenz v.
Quinlivan, 213 F.2d 914 (6th Cir. 1954), with Wall v. United
States, 164 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1947) (dividend or capital gain on
redemption of shares of corporation). We see no need to repeat
5 We note that the extent to which amortization deductions could
be taken with respect to tax-exempt income-producing property was
not changed by the enactment in 1989 of sec. 167(e). See infra
p. 13 and note 6.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011