30
Petitioner failed to cite, nor do we find, any authority
which stands for the proposition that expenses incurred in the
creation of separate and distinct assets are currently deductible
if such expenses are incurred regularly. Accordingly, the fact
that the banks incurred expenditures on a recurring basis does
not ensure their characterization as "ordinary" if they are
incurred in the creation of a separate and distinct asset. See
Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U.S. 79, 84 (1938) (denying deduction
for commissions even though they were regular and recurring
expenses in the taxpayer's business of buying and selling
securities).
Integral Part of Business
Petitioner contends that another important factor in
determining whether the particular expenditures should be
capitalized or currently deducted is that they are integrally
related to the conduct of the banks' business. Petitioner argues
that this factor addresses the pragmatic concern that, in some
businesses, almost all costs theoretically could be allocated in
some fashion to the acquisition of assets, so that under an
overly expansive view of section 263, the availability of section
162 deductions for such businesses would be largely eliminated.
We have examined the cases and revenue rulings cited by
petitioner in support of this argument and do not find them
controlling, nor do we find that they support the proposition for
which petitioner contends.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011