- 35 -
not entitle him to take a deduction contrary to this provision.”
Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U.S. at 84.
Petitioners argue that Helvering v. Winmill, supra, is
irrelevant. Petitioners recognize that the taxpayer in the
Winmill case, similar to petitioners here, relied on a provision
in the regulations that provided specifically that compensation
paid in the ordinary course of business qualified as a deductible
expense. Petitioners distinguish the Winmill case by noting that
another provision in those regulations provided specifically that
“commissions paid in purchasing securities are a part of the cost
price of such securities.” Regs. 77, art. 282 (1932).
Petitioners conclude that the Supreme Court’s holding in the
Winmill case rested solely on the presence of the second
provision and assert that no similar provision exists here to
preclude explicitly its deduction of the salaries and benefits.
Petitioners also note that the instant facts are different than
Winmill in that ACC is not a securities dealer, the installment
contracts are not securities, and none of the installment
contracts expenditures are commissions.
We disagree with petitioners’ assertion that Helvering v.
Winmill, supra, is irrelevant. We, like the Supreme Court in the
Winmill case, focus on a specific, longstanding position set
forth in the Treasury regulations to conclude that the salaries
and benefits must be capitalized even though, in a different
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011