Vena Marilyn Wofford - Page 11

                                          11                                           
          can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.  Sec. 1.167(a)-3,                 
          Income Tax Regs.  No deduction for depreciation is allowable with            
          respect to an intangible asset, the useful life of which is not              
          limited.  Id.  Under the regulation, "No allowance will be                   
          permitted merely because, in the unsupported opinion of the                  
          taxpayer, the intangible asset has a limited useful life.  No                
          deduction for depreciation is allowable with respect to good                 
          will."  Id.  However, an intangible asset with an ascertainable              
          value and a limited useful life, the duration of which can be                
          ascertained with reasonable accuracy, is depreciable under                   
          section 167, notwithstanding the fact that its value is related              
          to the expectancy of continued patronage.  Newark Morning Ledger             
          Co. v. United States, 507 U.S. 546, 570 (1993).                              
               Petitioner contends that she acquired the customer lists and            
          that her basis in those lists was equal to the purchase price set            
          forth in the agreement.  Thus, petitioner argues that her basis              
          includes the total amount due as territory repayments.                       
               Respondent makes two counterarguments.  Respondent argues               
          that petitioner's obligation to make territory repayments was too            
          contingent and cannot be included in computing petitioner's basis            
          in her distributorship.  Thus, respondent contends that                      
          petitioner has not established a basis in excess of actual cash              
          payments.  Respondent also argues that petitioner did not                    
          actually acquire the customer lists, but instead acquired                    
          franchise rights as defined in section 1253.  Respondent contends            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011