Bruce K. Remy and Gail E. Remy - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
             deduction of the value of services rendered by a cash basis              
             taxpayer.  In that case, the Supreme Court held that a                   
             newspaper publisher had proven that a list of "paid                      
             subscribers" constituted an intangible asset with an                     
             ascertainable value and a limited useful life, the duration              
             of which could be ascertained with reasonable accuracy,                  
             and, thus, qualified for the depreciation allowance under                
             section 167.  The case does not support petitioner's                     
             assertion that the value of professional services rendered               
             constitutes a deductible advertisement expense.                          
                  In light of the forgoing, we hold that the value of                 
             the telephone services rendered by petitioner was not an                 
             expense that was “paid or incurred” during any of the years              
             in issue and is not deductible under section 162.                        
             Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination that                    
             petitioners are not allowed a deduction for the value of                 
             the time Dr. Remy spent giving free telephone services to                
             his patients.                                                            
             Validity of Notice of Deficiency                                         
                  Petitioners also argue that the Court should disallow               
             the subject tax deficiencies on the ground that the revenue              
             agent's report, upon which the notice of deficiency is                   
             based, contains "gross errors of fact".  In support of                   
             this argument, petitioners cite Bruce & Human Drug Co.                   






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011