Horace D'Angelo - Page 18

                                        -18-                                          
          that an expenditure be capitalized when it (1) creates a separate           
          and distinct asset, (2) produces a significant future benefit,              
          or (3) is incurred “in connection with” the acquisition of a                
          capital asset.  See also Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418               
          U.S. 1, 13 (1974); Woodward v. Commissioner, 397 U.S. 572, 575-             
          576 (1970).  If any of the three conditions is met, an expense              
          may not be deducted and must be capitalized.                                
               Here, the correct legal framework in determining whether the           
          disputed legal fees are deductible is the origin of the claim               
          test.  United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39 (1963).  In order              
          for these fees to be deductible, the origin of the claim in the             
          underlying action must be proximately related to petitioner’s               
          trade or business.  Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U.S. 145               
          (1928).  The origin of the claim test is factual, and the factors           
          to be considered include:  (1) Allegations in the complaint,                
          (2) the legal issues involved, (3) the nature and objectives of             
          the litigation, (4) the defenses asserted, (5) the purposes for             
          which the amounts claimed as deductible were expended, and                  
          (6) the background of litigation and all facts pertaining to the            
          controversy.  Boagni v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 708, 713 (1973).              
               The first disputed fee, $770, relates to Oakland 3.  The               
          complaint by Pomeroy in this case alleged that petitioner, in his           
          capacity as president of H.K. Peach, had seized control of the              
          corporation and had operated the corporation “as his private                






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011