Vanalco, Inc., a Delaware S Corporation, Richard L. Smith, Tax Matters Person - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         

          Such an amount "is a capital expenditure that is taken into                 
          account through inclusion in inventory costs or a charge to                 
          capital accounts or basis".  Sec. 1.263(a)-1(b), Income Tax Regs.           
               Within the scope of section 263(a)(1) are those amounts paid           
          or incurred (1) to add to the value, or substantially prolong the           
          useful life, of property owned by the taxpayer, or (2) to adapt             
          property to a new or different use.  See sec. 1.263(a)-1(b),                
          Income Tax Regs.  However, section 1.263(a)-1(b), Income Tax                
          Regs., specifically recognizes that "Amounts paid or incurred for           
          incidental repairs and maintenance of property are not capital              
          expenditures * * *.  See section 162 and � 1.162-4."                        
               Thus an expense which is "incidental" is currently                     
          deductible and is not a capital expenditure.  If the repair is an           
          improvement or replacement, or if it increases the property's               
          value or substantially prolongs its useful life, it is capital in           
          nature and is not currently deductible.  See Wolfsen Land &                 
          Cattle Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1, 14 (1979).                           
               An important factor in determining whether the appropriate             
          tax treatment is immediate deduction or capitalization is the               
          taxpayer's realization of benefits beyond the year in which the             
          expenditure is incurred.  See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503            
          U.S. 79, 87 (1992); United States v. Wehrli, 400 F.2d 686, 689              
          (10th Cir. 1968).  This is not an absolute rule, however, as the            
          benefits of expenditures considered to be currently deductible              





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011