Intermet Corporation & Subsidiaries - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          172(f)(1)(B).  In rejecting the taxpayer’s contention that its              
          accounting and legal fees arose under Federal law, we stated:               
               It is true that the 1934 Act, ERISA, and the Internal                  
               Revenue Code require petitioners to file financial                     
               reports and disclosure statements, maintain and provide                
               books and records, and cooperate with IRS audits.                      
               However, those provisions do not establish petitioners’                
               liability to pay the amounts at issue.  Petitioners’                   
               liability to pay those amounts did not arise until                     
               petitioners contracted for and received the services.                  
               Petitioners’ choice of the means of compliance, and not                
               the regulatory provisions, determined the nature and                   
               amount of their costs.  If, on the other hand,                         
               petitioners had failed to comply with the auditing and                 
               reporting requirements or had not obtained the                         
               particular services in issue here, their liability                     
               would have been in amounts not measured by the value of                
               services.  Thus, petitioners’ liability did not arise                  
               under Federal law. [Sealy Corp. v. Commissioner, 107                   
               T.C. at 184.]                                                          
               Our holding in Sealy Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, was                 
          affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the               
          ground that the disputed expenses did not constitute “a liability           
          arising out of a Federal or State law”.  The court stated in                
          pertinent part:                                                             
               It is, therefore, not simply an expense incurred with                  
               respect to an obligation under federal law but an act                  
               “giving rise” to the liability that qualifies as a                     
               specified liability under the statute.  The act giving                 
               rise to each of the liabilities in question was the                    
               contractual act by which Sealy engaged lawyers or                      
               accountants.  In each of these instances the act did                   
               not occur at least three years before the beginning of                 
               the taxable year.                                                      
                    Sealy’s argument essentially is that the act                      
               giving rise to the liability is the first event in a                   
               chain of causes which gives rise to the liability.  The                
               argument leads to a reductio ad absurdum.  The                         
               organization of the company gave rise to an obligation                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011