- 11 -
satisfies the requirements for deductibility under section 162 is
a question of fact. See Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467,
475 (1943).
In support of its position that it is entitled to deduct for
the year at issue the claimed royalty expense, petitioner con-
tends, inter alia, that it provided sales and marketing assis-
tance to the Braswell sales corporations, that Vita assigned its
rights and obligations under the Vita-CMC agreement to peti-
tioner, and that petitioner was obligated to pay a 5-percent
royalty to CMC under that agreement. On the record before us, we
find that petitioner has failed to establish those (and other)
factual contentions as facts.8
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed
to establish that it incurred the claimed royalty expense during
the year at issue (or during any other year). We further find
that, assuming arguendo that petitioner had shown that it in-
curred that expense during the year at issue, petitioner has
failed to establish (1) that such expense is an ordinary and
necessary expense that it incurred during that year in carrying
on its trade or business, see sec. 162(a), and (2) that the all
8Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established those
factual contentions as facts, we find on the record before us
that it has not shown that those factual contentions pertain to
the year at issue. See supra note 2.
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