- 22 -
of determining both gain and loss. Also, unlike our situation,
Congress expressed its intent in the conference reports
accompanying those enactments that the fair market value basis
was not to be used for purposes of determining depreciation or
for other purposes. See H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (Vol. II), at II-
349 to II-350 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1, 349-350; H. Conf.
Rept. 105-220, at 566-567 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1457,
2036-2037. We cannot discern what considerations went into
enacting different basis rules in these enactments or the
statements in the conference reports. However, those rules are
confined to the particular taxable entities involved.
Respondent also argues that Congress did not intend to
provide a basis for the amortization of petitioner’s intangible
assets different from the regular adjusted cost basis determined
under sections 1011, 1012, and 1016, because Congress explicitly
reaffirmed the application of the regular adjusted basis rules in
DEFRA section 177(d)(5). DEFRA section 177(d)(5) provides: “For
purposes of this subsection, the adjusted basis of any asset
shall be determined under part II of subchapter O of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954.” Accepting respondent’s position with
respect to DEFRA section 177(d)(5) would seemingly nullify the
specific adjusted basis rules provided in DEFRA section
177(d)(2)(A) and (B). We do not read this provision as
respondent does. Instead, as we explain in greater detail below,
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011