Cascade Designs, Inc. - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
                                      OPINION                                        
          Issue 1.  Whether the Payments Were for the Purchase of Patents             
               Cascade asserts that the 1982 agreement is a valid and                 
          legally enforceable contract and the amount paid for the patents            
          was reasonable.  Consequently, Cascade argues, the payments are             
          deductible under section 167 as allowances for depreciation of              
          intangible property.7                                                       
               On brief, respondent contends that the 1982 agreement must             
          be disregarded as it was neither fair nor reasonable; rather, it            
          was a mere vehicle to disguise distributions of corporate profits           
          for favorable tax benefits.  Consequently, respondent asserts,              
          any payments made to Lea in excess of the amount provided in the            
          1979 sales agreement are nondeductible disguised dividends.                 


               7Sec. 167(a) allows as a depreciation deduction "a                     
          reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear (including           
          * * * obsolescence) * * * of property used in the [taxpayer's]              
          trade or  business".  Patents constitute intangible property,               
          which may be the subject of a depreciation allowance                        
          (amortization) under this section over their useful lives.  See             
          sec. 1.167(a)-3, Income Tax Regs.                                           
               Sec. 167(c) (which was designated sec. 167(g) in 1979 and              
          1982), specifies the basis for depreciation of any property                 
          "shall be the adjusted basis provided in section 1011, for the              
          purpose of determining the gain on the sale or other disposition            
          of such property."  Sec. 1012, when read with sec. 1011, provides           
          that the adjusted basis of the property is its "cost".                      
               If the purchase price of a patent is expressed by formula by           
          which a fixed dollar amount cannot be ascertained until future              
          years, such as a purchase price that is a fraction of sales, the            
          purchaser may deduct each year as depreciation only the amount of           
          the purchase price actually paid or payable.  See Newton Insert             
          Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 570, 581 (1974), affd. per curiam              
          545 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1976); Associated Patentees, Inc. v.                
          Commissioner, 4 T.C. 979 (1945).                                            





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011