David J. Lychuk and Mary K. Lychuk, et al. - Page 67




                                       - 64 -                                         
               We reject petitioners’ second argument.  As to their first             
          assertion, we disagree with them that acquisition costs are                 
          capitalizable under section 263(a) only if they create or add               
          value to a capital asset.30  In Dustin v. Commissioner, 467 F.2d            
          47, 49-50 (9th Cir. 1972), affg. 53 T.C. 491 (1969), the taxpayer           
          was a shareholder of an S corporation (Capitol) that agreed to              
          acquire the stock of a company that owned and operated radio                
          station KGMS.  In 1961, Capitol incurred $12,460 of legal,                  
          engineering, and accounting fees in connection with the transfer            
          to Capitol of control of station KGMS’ radio-broadcasting                   
          license.  The taxpayer deducted his proportionate share of these            
          expenses, and the Commissioner disallowed the deduction asserting           
          that the expenses were capital expenditures.  The taxpayer argued           
          in this Court that he could deduct $10,960 of the expenses                  
          because they were attributable to a hearing held by the Federal             
          Communications Commission on this matter and which did not add              
          any value to the acquired stock.  We disagreed with the taxpayer            
          that any of these amounts were currently deductible.  On appeal,            
          so did the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  According to            

               30 As mentioned above, we understand the term “capital                 
          asset” to be used in its accounting sense and not in accordance             
          with its meaning under sec. 1221.  We add to our prior discussion           
          that the term as applied to capitalization issues does not arise            
          from the Code but is a byproduct of judicial interpretation.  On            
          the basis of our understanding of the meaning of the term, we               
          reject petitioners’ contention that costs related to an                     
          “ordinary” asset under sec. 1221 can never be a capital                     
          expenditure.                                                                





Page:  Previous  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011