- 33 -
Accordingly, respondent’s use of INDOPCO does not vary from the
standards set forth earlier in this opinion. There is no unique
aspect or requirement in the Supreme Court’s INDOPCO opinion that
pertains specifically to the issue we consider. Likewise,
petitioners confirm that the INDOPCO holding did nothing to
change the standards established by the pre-INDOPCO body of law
that deals with repair and maintenance expenses. Accordingly, it
is not necessary to analyze further the INDOPCO holding in the
context of this case.
Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are entitled to deduct
the cost of maintaining their towboat engines under section
162.10
To reflect the foregoing and to give effect to the
agreements of the parties,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
10 Respondent, on brief, stated that increased interest
under sec. 6621(c) was in dispute, but neither party presented
any argument or findings addressing that item. In that regard,
our holding that petitioners are entitled to deduct the costs in
question would obviate the need to consider sec. 6621(c) with
respect to that adjustment. See also Pen Coal Corp. v.
Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249 (1996).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Last modified: May 25, 2011