- 29 -
the interpretation of a particular statute, as well as its
interplay with the regular adjusted basis rules in the Code.
Second, it would be inappropriate to speculate on the factors
that were considered in making such “estimates”.19 See Fort
Howard Corp. v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 345, 364 (1994) (revenue
estimates have little relevance in interpreting a statute).
Respondent also claims that “with respect to the dual basis
rule provided in * * * [DEFRA] � 177(d)(2)(A), it is not possible
to know which basis rule applies until such time that the asset
is disposed of and the sales price is known.” He contends that
the basis to be used for purposes of determining any gain
“depends entirely on the amount of the sale as well as the fact
of the sale”, since “Until petitioner’s Intangibles are sold or
disposed of, and the sales proceeds are known, it will not be
known whether there will be any ‘gain’ at all for purposes of * *
* [DEFRA] � 177(d)(2)(A)(ii).”
Petitioner’s basis for amortization is not dependent upon
whether the particular property is sold or disposed of or upon
the amount realized in that transaction. Indeed, if respondent’s
argument is correct, the same logic would apply in all cases
where Congress has provided a dual-basis rule for determining
19We point out that we have not yet decided, in these
proceedings, the appropriate amount of any deductions to which
petitioner is entitled, and, indeed, whether its alleged
intangibles are subject to amortization for tax purposes.
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