Michael A. McGrath and Frances Y. McGrath - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
               Applying the foregoing to the instant case, we conclude that           
          (1) petitioners’ expenditures dealt with in this issue are                  
          capital expenditures and (2) (unless some other provision or rule           
          leads to a different result) petitioners’ deductions on account             
          of these expenditures are determined under sections 167 and 168,            
          and not under section 162(a)(3).                                            
               There is a nonstatutory exception to the foregoing that                
          applies to the instant case.  Where a lessee makes a capital                
          expenditure in lieu of some rent, then the expenditure will be              
          treated as rent and not as a capital expenditure by the lessee.             
          This exception’s rationale is explained, and its application is             
          illustrated, in Your Health Club, Inc. v. Commissioner, 4 T.C.              
          385, 389-390 (1944), as follows:                                            
                    The second question relates to the deductibility of               
               rent in the amount of $4,250 in the fiscal year ended March            
               31, 1940.  The facts show that petitioner had obligated                
               itself to pay rental for that year in the amount of $4,250,            
               but that a clause in the lease provided that petitioner                
               might make certain improvements to the premises, the cost of           
               which to the extent of $1,500 might be applied to the                  
               contractual rental.  Petitioner expended $1,374.96 in making           
               such improvements, applying this amount as a credit against            
               the total rent due, and paid the lessor the difference,                
               $2,875.04.  The Commissioner determined that only the latter           
               amount was deductible as rent and disallowed the deduction             
               of the amount of $1,374.96, adding it to capital and making            
               proper adjustment for amortization.  Petitioner contends               
               that the disallowed item was properly deductible as rent.              
                    Petitioner does not question the general rule that the            
               cost borne by a lessee in making permanent improvements upon           
               leased property is a capital expenditure, but contends that            
               the outlay in this instance was no more than an indirect               
               payment of a part of the stipulated rental, inasmuch as it             
               was agreed that the cost of the improvements should be                 





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011