Basin Electric Power Cooperative - Page 35

                                       - 35 -                                         
               of the first lease, or costs incurred to cancel the                    
               first lease, are not currently deductible but rather                   
               are costs of continuing the first lease in modified                    
               form. [Id.]                                                            
               In U.S. Bancorp & Consol. Subs., the Court analogized the              
          cancellation of a lease and the execution of a new lease for the            
          same property as in substance a modification of the original                
          lease, which requires that the costs incurred in order to effect            
          such modification be capitalized.  Under U.S. Bancorp & Consol.             
          Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 240 (citing Pig & Whistle Co. v.            
          Commissioner, 9 B.T.A. 668 (1927); Phil Gluckstern’s, Inc. v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1956-9), costs paid or incurred to                 
          modify a lease, like the expenditures at issue here, must be                
          capitalized and may not be deducted when paid or incurred.                  
               Petitioner argues that U.S. Bancorp & Consol. Subs. is                 
          distinguishable from the instant case because in U.S. Bancorp &             
          Consol. Subs. the new lease covered property (i.e., a new more              
          powerful mainframe computer) different from the property that the           
          old lease covered, while in the instant case the modified 1985              
          sale and leaseback covered the same property that the 1985 sale             
          and leaseback covered.  We reject that argument.  In U.S. Bancorp           
          & Consol. Subs., the Court found unpersuasive the taxpayer’s                
          argument that it was significant that the new lease involved                
          there covered property different from the property that the                 
          original lease covered.  That argument, according to the Court,             
          ignored the integrated nature of those two leases.  U.S. Bancorp            





Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011