- 71 - cable television company NICATV. Respondent also asserts that petitioners have failed to establish that the disputed legal expenses were directly connected with or proximately resulted from NITCO's business activities. We essentially agree with respondent. We think that the mere naming of NITCO as a party in the FCC proceedings does not suffice to make the legal expenses deductible. The Synanon Church v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989- 270.16 In Gilmore, the Supreme Court noted: 16But cf. Kopp's Co. v. United States, 636 F.2d 59, 61 (4th Cir. 1980), where the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit distinguished United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39 (1963), reversed the lower court's holding that the legal expense in dispute failed to meet the origin-of-the-claim test, and allowed the taxpayer-corporation to deduct certain legal expense. In Kopp's Co., the corporation incurred the legal expense in defending itself and a shareholder's son in a tort suit stemming from an accident involving a company car driven by the son. The son had not been a corporate employee, nor had he been engaged in performing corporate business. The court distinguished Gilmore on the basis that the taxpayer-corporation had been named as a party defendant and was alleged to have negligently permitted the son to operate its car. We think that Kopp's Co. v. United States is inapposite to the instant cases. Unlike the instant cases, the taxpayer-corporation in Kopp's Co. apparently engaged only in business activities. The activity giving rise to the lawsuit, although arguably unrelated to the taxpayer’s business, was an isolated incident. In contrast, NITCO engaged in substantial nonbusiness activities before, during, and after the years in issue. Indeed, the precise activities giving rise to the proceedings in issue were NITCO’s nonbusiness activities. For example, the FCC based its conclusion that NITCO and NICATV were affiliated, inter alia, upon the following nonbusiness activities: (1) NITCO’s construction and maintenance of signal distribution facilities for NICATV, (2) Rhys’ responsibility, while serving as NITCO’s executive vice president, for negotiating pole attachment agreements with competing cable companies, (3) the fact that all contractual agreements between NITCO and NICATV were oral, and (4) Rhys’ oral “consulting agreement”.Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011