- 51 -
business.24 The employees were paid specifically to perform work
as to the acquisitions, and the amount of the compensation that
ACC paid to the employees hinged directly on the number of
installment contracts that it acquired, e.g., at least some of
the employees were entitled to receive a bonus in profitable
years.25 Thus, whereas the officers in Wells Fargo & Co. &
Subs., supra, performed the typical services of bank employees,
services which could include work on a capital transaction as
part of the bank’s business in general, ACC’s employees were
hired and paid to perform services that necessarily would include
work on capital asset acquisitions.
The record here indicates specifically the portion of ACC’s
total compensation that was directly related to ACC’s acquisition
of the installment contracts, and, in accordance with Supreme
Court precedent (as well as jurisprudence from the Second
Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and this Court), we consider as capital
expenditures that “proportion of the wages and salaries of
employees who spend some of their working hours laboring on the
acquisition”. Briarcliff Candy Corp. v. Commissioner, 475 F.2d
at 781; see Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. at 13; see
24 Of the total compensation paid to the disputed employees
in 1993 and 1994, 76 percent ($213,028/$280,222) and 65.4 percent
($273,212/$418,065), respectively, was attributable to the
acquisition of installment contracts.
25 We also bear in mind the statement in ACC’s PPM discussed
supra note 13.
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011