- 18 -
listed on the financial statements. We do not know whether
Congress reviewed, or relied upon, petitioner’s financial
statements in devising the special basis rules under DEFRA
section 177(d)(2), or whether Congress was aware or not aware of
petitioner’s claimed intangibles. We do know that for purposes
of determining adjusted basis, Congress separated tangible
depreciable property from other property that petitioner held on
January 1, 1985. We cannot assume that Congress inadvertently
failed to include a special exception for intangibles simply
because no intangibles appeared as assets on petitioner’s
financial statements. That being said, we are left with a
special exception to DEFRA section 177(d)(2)(A), which refers
only to tangible depreciable property and which by implication
indicates that the adjusted basis of intangible property is
determined under DEFRA section 177(d)(2)(A).
Respondent argues that we should not infer “an amortization
scheme for petitioner’s intangibles” on the basis of
congressional silence. However, given the statutory framework
for determining adjusted basis, the interplay of DEFRA section
177(d)(2)(A) and section 1011 of the Code, and the reference in
section 167(g) to the basis for determining gain as the basis to
be used for amortization, we cannot agree that we are inferring
petitioner’s basis for amortization by reason of congressional
silence.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011