- 10 -
"principal function of the term 'ordinary' * * * is to clarify
the distinction, often difficult, between those expenses that are
currently deductible and those that are * * * capital
expenditures". Additionally, the term "ordinary" has been
defined as "normal, usual, or customary". Deputy v. DuPont, 308
U.S. 488, 495 (1940). A payment of an expense is "normal" if it
arises from an action that is ordinarily to be expected of one in
the taxpayer's position. Commissioner v. Heininger, supra at
471. Although an expense may be incurred only once in a
taxpayer's lifetime, it is ordinary if the transaction that gives
rise to it is "of common or frequent occurrence in the type of
business" in which the taxpayer is engaged. Deputy v. DuPont,
supra at 495; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 114 (1933); see
also Lilly v. Commissioner, 343 U.S. 90, 93 (1952).
To be "necessary", an expense need only meet the minimal
requirement that it be appropriate and helpful for the
development of the taxpayer's business. Commissioner v. Tellier,
supra at 689. An expense is not to be considered unnecessary
simply because the taxpayer could have avoided it by pursuing a
different course of conduct. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc. v. United
States, 708 F.2d 1043, 1044-1045 (6th Cir. 1983).
As respondent concedes that petitioner's payment of the CME
fine was not a capital expenditure within the meaning of section
263, we need not further consider that aspect of the term
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011