David J. Lychuk and Mary K. Lychuk, et al. - Page 44




                                       - 41 -                                         
          in evaluating the market in which Parkway was located.  See id.             
          at 1381.  The taxpayer noted that the expenses were incurred                
          before it was bound to buy Parkway’s stock.  The Court of                   
          Appeals, in rejecting the taxpayer’s claim to current                       
          deductibility, stated:                                                      
               Ellis also devotes a portion of its brief to arguing                   
               that it is in the business of promoting banks, so that                 
               the expenditures made in that business are deductible.                 
               It is not enough to establish that expenditures are                    
               incurred in carrying on a trade or business to qualify                 
               for a deduction under section 162--all of the                          
               requirements set out above [namely, the five                           
               requirements for deductibility set forth in                            
               Commissioner v. Lincoln Sav. & Loan Association, 403                   
               U.S. at 352-353,] must be fulfilled.  Indeed, if being                 
               in the business sufficed, Ellis would be able to deduct                
               the purchase price of the Parkway stock. * * *  [Id. at                
               1381 n.10.]                                                            
          The Court of Appeals went on to say that                                    
               the expenses of investigating a capital investment are                 
               properly allocable to that investment and must                         
               therefore be capitalized.  That the decision to make                   
               the investment is not final at the time of the                         
               expenditure does not change the character of the                       
               investment; when a taxpayer abandons a project or fails                
               to make an attempted investment, the preliminary                       
               expenditures that have been capitalized are then                       
               deductible as a loss under section 165.  * * *  As the                 
               First Circuit stated, ‘* * * expenditures made with the                
               contemplation that they will result in the creation of                 
               a capital asset cannot be deducted as ordinary and                     
               necessary business expenses even though that                           
               expectation is subsequently frustrated or defeated.’                   
               Union Mutual, 570 F.2d at 392 (emphasis in original).                  
               Nor can the expenditures be deducted because the                       
               expectations might have been, but were not, frustrated.                
               [Id. at 1382.]                                                         
               Our opinion as to the salaries and benefits is further                 
          supported by the cases of Godfrey v. Commissioner, 335 F.2d 82              





Page:  Previous  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011