- 9 -
ownership of the property. See United States v. Gilmore, 372
U.S. 39, 44 (1963); Reed v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 32, 42 (1970);
Duntley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-579. Therefore, to be
deductible under section 212, professional expenses must be
directly connected or proximately related to the management,
conservation, or maintenance of the property. See Bingham Trust
v. Commissioner, supra at 375; Duntley v. Commissioner, supra.
Conversely, expenditures paid or incurred in defending or
perfecting title to property, such as legal expenses in a suit to
quiet title to real estate and expenses paid to protect one's
right to property of a decedent as a beneficiary under a
testamentary trust, constitute a part of the cost of property and
are not deductible expenses. See Woodward v. Commissioner, 397
U.S. 572, 575 (1970); Boagni v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 708, 711-
712 (1973); sec. 1.212-1(k), Income Tax Regs.; see also sec.
1.263(a)-2(c), Income Tax Regs., which classifies "The cost of
defending or perfecting title to property" as a capital
expenditure.
Petitioner contends that the disallowed professional fees at
issue in this case are deductible under section 212, because (1)
defending against the lawsuit protected her taxable income
stream, and (2) the fees were ordinary and necessary expenses
incurred in that effort. Petitioner also contends that the
disallowed professional fees qualify as ordinary and necessary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011