27
expenditures here challenged did not create a property interest.
They produced nothing corporeal or salable." See also First
Natl. Bank of South Carolina v. United States, supra at 723
("Membership in ASBA is not a separate and distinct additional
asset created or enhanced by the payments in question.").
The cases cited by petitioner are distinguishable from the
facts before us because the expenses in the instant cases created
loans which were separate and distinct assets. Although
petitioner may be correct that loan origination expenses are
"similar" to those incurred in the cases on which it relies,
nonetheless, in the instant cases separate and distinct assets
were created. Thus, the cited cases do not support petitioner's
argument and certainly are not "direct precedent" as it contends.
See Ellis Banking Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-123,
affd. in part and remanded in part on another issue 688 F.2d 1376
(11th Cir. 1982) (distinguishing cases the taxpayer relied upon
by the fact that separate and distinct assets were not acquired).
The facts and circumstances of each case must be examined to
determine whether an expense should be capitalized or currently
deducted. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. at 86;
Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. at 496; United States v. General
Bancshares Corp., 388 F.2d 184, 187-188 (8th Cir. 1968)
(expenditures must be viewed "in context with the transaction in
which they are incurred to assess their proper
characterization."). A particular cost, no matter what its type,
may be deductible in one context but may be required to be
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011