12 arisen under a Federal or State law. Sec. 172(f)(1)(B). Petitioners argue that their liability to pay accounting and professional fees and IRS examination expenses arose under Federal law. We disagree. It is true that the 1934 Act, ERISA, and the Internal Revenue Code require petitioners to file financial reports and disclosure statements, maintain and provide books and records, and cooperate with IRS audits. However, those provisions do not establish petitioners’ liability to pay the amounts at issue. Petitioners’ liability to pay those amounts did not arise until petitioners contracted for and received the services. Petitioners' choice of the means of compliance, and not the regulatory provisions, determined the nature and amount of their costs. If, on the other hand, petitioners had failed to comply with the auditing and reporting requirements or had not obtained the particular services in issue here, their liability would have been in amounts not measured by the value of services. Thus, petitioners' liability did not arise under Federal law. 2. Enactment of the Specific Liability Loss Rule With the Economic Performance Rules Our interpretation is entirely consistent with the legislative history which accompanied enactment of the predecessor of the specified liability loss provision. Before 1984, an accrual basis taxpayer generally could deduct an expense for the tax year in which (a) all events had occurred whichPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011