- 23 -
Applying this analysis to deposit base, it is
irrelevant for purposes of depreciation that deposit
base cannot be separately transferred and only has
economic significance in the context of a bank.
Accordingly, the separate transferability of deposit
base is not required in order to establish that deposit
base has a determinable value separate and distinct
from goodwill. [Citations omitted.]
We believe a similar analysis applies with respect to
petitioner’s favorable financing. See also Peoples
Bancorporation & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-285.
Thus, the meaningful question is whether the favorable financing
had a separate and distinct value as of January 1, 1985.11
Because we are dealing with a specific adjusted basis rule
provided by Congress in a statute which is applicable only to
petitioner and which provides an adjusted basis that is in some
cases different from the regular adjusted cost basis in an asset,
our analogy to the cases involving core deposits, or any other
situation for that matter, can never be perfect. But, we believe
the principles developed in those cases do indeed support
petitioner’s treatment of its favorable financing as an
intangible asset on January 1, 1985.12
11Respondent does not argue that petitioner could never
transfer its favorable financing. Indeed, in his memorandum in
support of his cross-motion for summary judgment at page 25,
respondent points out that “Some of the Intangibles in question *
* * are not likely to be disposed until petitioner itself is
liquidated or acquired.”
12We observe that petitioner’s claimed favorable financing
appears to present a better case, in some respects, for “asset”
(continued...)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011