Richard D. Nelson - Page 12




                                               - 12 -                                                  
            ordinary and necessary business expense.5  Conversely, respondent                          
            contends that the legal fee was a capital expenditure and,                                 
            accordingly, not deductible.  Alternatively, respondent contends                           
            that if the attorney’s fee is not a capital expenditure, November                          
            would not be entitled to deduct the entire amount for failure to                           
            meet the all events test.                                                                  
            Should the $1.5 Million Legal Fee Be Capitalized?                                          
                  Respondent, relying on INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503                            
            U.S. 79 (1992), argues that the $1.5 million legal fee is a                                
            nonamortizable capital expenditure.  Petitioner, however,                                  
            contends that under section 162 the legal fee was an ordinary and                          
            necessary expense that was incurred in carrying on a trade or                              
            business.  Respondent counters that section 263 provides that no                           
            deduction is allowable for amounts paid for permanent                                      
            improvements or betterments made to increase the value of any                              
            property or estate.  Respondent, in support of his determination,                          
            contends that petitioner instituted suit for the purpose of                                
            asserting ownership over the bingo operation, and, ultimately, he                          
            emerged as the owner, subject to his making certain payments to                            
            the Lichtys and others, including Kreiger, petitioner’s attorney.                          



                  5 Petitioner also points out that respondent did not allow                           
            the amounts actually paid by November to the attorney during                               
            1991, 1992, and 1993.  In that regard, respondent’s determination                          
            that the expenditure should be capitalized would not depend on                             
            the method of accounting or when the amounts were actually paid.                           





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011