- 52 -
also Cagle v. Commissioner, 539 F.2d at 416; Perlmutter v.
Commissioner, 44 T.C. at 404.
Petitioners are mistaken when they assert that established
jurisprudence provides that section 162(a) always allows a
taxpayer to deduct the everyday, recurring costs of its business.
The primary cases upon which petitioners rely, i.e., the credit
card cases, did not merely rest on facts that the costs at issue
there were everyday and recurring in nature. All of those cases
involved costs which were incurred in the businesses’ startup
phase and which did not produce any separate or distinct asset.
In Colorado Springs Natl. Bank v. United States, 505 F.2d at
1192, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
noted that "The start-up expenditures here challenged did not
create a property interest. They produced nothing corporeal or
salable." Similarly, in First Natl. Bank of South Carolina v.
United States, 558 F.2d at 723, the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit noted that “Membership in ASBA is not a separate
and distinct additional asset created or enhanced by the payments
in question.” Likewise, in Iowa-Des Moines Natl. Bank v.
Commissioner, 68 T.C. at 879, we noted that the costs "did not
create or enhance a separate and distinct asset or property
interest."26 Cf. Central Tex. Sav. & Loan Association v. United
26 In First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A. v. Commissioner,
592 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1979), affg. 63 T.C. 644 (1975), the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011