- 58 -
the taxpayer had not shown to be commensurate with the actual
risks of loss for the years of payment. We relied on INDOPCO,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992), to conclude that the
premium payments, the deduction of which we disallowed, created
significant future benefits for the taxpayer. See Black Hills
Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 514.
It is a question of fact whether any premium payment creates
future benefits that rule out a current deduction. The fact that
Congress intended an entrance fee adequate to insure nondilution
of the Bank Insurance Fund (sometimes, the Fund) is not, by
itself, a sufficient fact to prove that its payment did not
create a significant future benefit to Metrobank. The Fund was
established by section 211 of FIRREA (adding, among other
provisions, 12 U.S.C. sec. 1821(a)(5) (Supp. I, 1989)). The Fund
was established by Congress for use by the FDIC to carry out its
insurance purposes. See 12 U.S.C. sec. 1821(a)(4)(C) (Supp. I,
1989). Initial funding of the Fund came from the Permanent
Insurance Fund. See 12 U.S.C. sec. 1821(a)(5)(B) (Supp. I,
1989). Additional funding was to come from annual assessments
(the annual assessments) against insured depository institutions.
See 12 U.S.C. sec. 1817(b)(1)(A) (Supp. I, 1989). Congress
established a designated reserve ratio for the Fund of 1.25
percent of estimated insured deposits, or, if justified by
circumstances that raise a significant risk of substantial future
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011