FMR Corp. and Subsidiaries - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          year; (2) be for carrying on any trade or business; (3) be an               
          expense; (4) be a necessary expense; and (5) be an ordinary                 
          expense.  Commissioner v. Lincoln Sav. & Loan Association, 403              
          U.S. 345, 352 (1971).                                                       
               Respondent does not dispute whether the expenditures in                
          issue were "paid or incurred during the taxable year", or whether           
          the expenditures were "necessary" in the accepted sense of                  
          "'appropriate and helpful' for 'the development of the                      
          [taxpayer's] business'".  Id. at 353 (quoting Commissioner v.               
          Tellier, 383 U.S. 687, 689 (1966)).  However, respondent does not           
          agree that any of the expenditures in issue can be deemed either            
          an "expense" or an "ordinary expense" capable of deduction under            
          section 162.6  Id. at 354.                                                  
               In Commissioner v. Tellier, supra at 689-690, the Supreme              
          Court stated:                                                               

               The principal function of the term "ordinary" in �                     
               162(a) is to clarify the distinction, often difficult,                 
               between those expenses that are currently deductible                   
               and those that are in the nature of capital                            
               expenditures, which, if deductible at all, must be                     
               amortized over the useful life of the asset.  * * *                    


               6In this context, the term "expense" must be distinguished             
          from an expenditure that is capital in nature.  As stated in                
          Commissioner v. Lincoln Sav. & Loan Association, 403 U.S. 345,              
          354 (1971), a payment that serves to create a separate and                  
          distinct asset is, as an inevitable consequence, "capital in                
          nature and not an expense, let alone an ordinary expense".  On              
          the other hand, the principal function of the term "ordinary" has           
          been to distinguish between expenditures that are capital in                
          nature and those that are currently deductible expenses.                    




Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011