- 38 -
period over which to amortize and deduct the expenditures at
issue is 1995 and 1996. Section 1.167(a)-3, Income Tax Regs., on
which petitioner relies in support of that argument, states that
an intangible asset may be the subject of a depreciation allow-
ance if that intangible asset has an ascertainable, limited
useful life. Petitioner has not offered any evidence establish-
ing that the useful life of the modified 1985 sale and leaseback
is only the two-year period 1995 and 1996. That petitioner in
effect recouped the expenditures at issue over 1995 and 1996
pursuant to the terms of the modified 1985 sale and leaseback
agreements does not establish that the useful life of each of
those agreements is that two-year period. On the record before
us, we reject petitioner’s argument that section 1.167(a)-3,
Income Tax Regs., requires that the expenditures at issue be
amortized and deducted over the two-year period 1995 and 1996.
We turn now to respondent’s argument that the appropriate
period over which to amortize and deduct the expenditures at
issue is the term of the modified 1985 sale and leaseback agree-
ments beginning with 1995 and ending with 2020. The Supreme
Court of the United States has concluded that “a capital expendi-
ture usually is amortized and depreciated over the life of the
relevant asset”. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. at 83-
84. Petitioner cites no authority that would take the instant
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011