Norwest Corporation and Subsidiaries, Successor in Interest to United Banks of Colorado, Inc., and Subsidiaries, et al. - Page 42

                                       - 42 -                                         
          cases.  In Willow Terrace Dev. Co. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. at              
          701,6 this Court stated:                                                    
               As we read the Collins case, the pivotal consideration                 
               is whether the basic purpose for constructing such                     
               utilities systems in real estate subdivisions is to                    
               induce people to buy lots in such subdivisions.  It is                 
               a question of fact, and in resolving it the profit and                 
               loss record of the operating company must, of course,                  
               be considered.  But this does not mean that the                        
               presence of some profit will always be fatal to the                    
               taxpayers's case.  * * *                                               
          In addition, this Court in Noell v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 718,              
          725 (1976), stated as follows:                                              
                    The critical question is whether petitioner                       
               intended to hold the facilities to realize a return on                 
               his capital from business operations, to recover his                   
               capital from a future sale, or some combination of the                 


          6    The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated as                   
          follows:                                                                    
               The problem presented by these cases is whether                        
               deduction or capitalization of such costs will more                    
               accurately reflect the economic realities of the                       
               situation from the standpoint of the subdivider.  We                   
               cannot accept the rule advocated by the Commissioner,                  
               which in effect allows deduction only when the costs                   
               can be recovered in no other manner.  Some relevant                    
               factors to be considered in determining the proper tax                 
               treatment of the costs of such facilities are whether                  
               they were essential to the sale of the lots or houses,                 
               whether the purpose or intent of the subdivider in                     
               constructing them was to sell lots or to make an                       
               independent investment in activity ancillary to the                    
               sale of lots or houses, whether and the extent to which                
               the facilities are dedicated to the homeowners, what                   
               rights and of what value are retained by the                           
               subdivider, and the likelihood of recovery of the costs                
               through subsequent sale.  These factors were considered                
               in Collins, and the holding centered on the basic                      
               purpose test as modified by ownership.  * * *  [Willow                 
               Terrace Dev. Co. v. Commissioner, 345 F.2d 933, 938                    
               (5th Cir. 1965).]                                                      




Page:  Previous  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011