- 34 -
123; American Stores Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 458,
468-470 (2000). If the majority intended to express no opinion
on what the result in this case would have been if respondent had
advanced such an argument, the majority should not have used
language that, in my view, could be construed to suggest such an
opinion.2
I have considered and resolved the issue of whether the exit
fee and the entrance fee should be capitalized solely on the
basis of respondent’s theory that those fees produced certain
significant long-term benefits for Metrobank. On the record
presented, I, like the majority, reject respondent’s theory that
the benefits which respondent asserts the fees in question
produced are significant long-term benefits requiring
capitalization of those fees.3 However, I disagree with the
majority that the exit fee is a “final premium for insurance that
it had already received”, majority op. p. 20, and that the
entrance fee is a “premium * * * paid for the current year’s
2Similarly, if the majority decided this case “as framed by
respondent”, majority op. p. 11, the majority should not have
concluded that, although respondent does not argue that the facts
presented in this case are similar to the facts in Commissioner
v. Lincoln Sav. & Loan Association, 403 U.S. 345 (1971), see
majority op. p. 25, the facts in the instant case are not similar
to those facts, see id.
3Unlike the majority, I have not considered whether there
are any benefits other than those alleged by respondent that are
significant future benefits generated for Metrobank by the fees
in question. See majority op. pp. 18-19.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011