- 11 -
fees. Petitioner argues that Metrobank derived no significant
long-term benefit from its payment of either fee.
We decide this case as framed by respondent and hold that
petitioner may deduct the fees. In reaching this holding, we
specifically note that respondent did not determine, and has
declined to argue, that the fees should be capitalized on the
grounds that they were necessarily incurred in connection with
the acquisition of another financial institution or, more
specifically, the acquisition of the assets and liabilities of
another financial institution. See, e.g., INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra; Ellis Banking Corp. v. Commissioner, 688
F.2d 1376 (11th Cir. 1982), affg. in part and remanding in part
on an issue not relevant herein T.C. Memo. 1981-123; American
Stores Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 458 (2000). If
respondent had made such a determination or argument, petitioner
may well have wanted to offer evidence relating to it. In order
to avoid prejudicing petitioner with respect to a theory not
raised before the case was submitted, we save any comment on that
theory for another day. See Leahy v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 56,
64-65 (1986) (Court declined to consider a theory raised by
respondent on brief where, as here, the parties submitted the
case with the facts fully stipulated and presumably with an
understanding of the legal issues to be presented and defended);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011