- 24 -                                         
          created.  If a materially indistinct copy of the seismic data               
          tapes and film could be reproduced from another pass over the               
          relevant portion of the earth's surface, this Court would assert            
          that the intrinsic value of the property is in the seismic data             
          and not in the tapes and film, contrary to the Fifth Circuit's              
          conclusion.  That discrepancy exists because this Court, under              
          the rationale of Ronnen v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 74 (1988), and             
          its progeny, would likely focus on the theoretical duplicability            
          of the seismic data tapes and film in determining whether the               
          seismic data exists as property separate and apart from its                 
          physical manifestation, whereas the Fifth Circuit would focus on            
          the nonexistence as property of the particular seismic data in              
          the absence of a recording of that data on some tangible medium.            
               In addition, the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of the test            
          of tangibility created by the Fifth Circuit in Texas Instruments,           
          Inc. v. United States, supra, referred to as the “totally                   
          dependent” test in Comshare, Inc. v. United States, supra, may              
          lead to anomalous results.  By focusing on whether a taxpayer's             
          investment can be put to productive use in the absence of the               
          tangible medium, the Sixth Circuit's approach would conceivably             
          characterize both the information underlying a complex patent               
          that could only be conveyed to and used by a purchaser if                   
          embodied in some tangible medium and the associated intellectual            
          property rights of that patent as tangible personal property for            
          purposes of the ITC.  Arguably, however, that result would be               
Page:  Previous   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011