- 28 -
In Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. United States, 54 Fed.
Cl. 132 (2002), the Court of Federal Claims explained that in
order for a taxpayer to be entitled to amortization deductions
relating to intangible assets, the taxpayer would have to prove:
(1) that the asset wastes over time, including that the
asset is not a regenerating mass asset;
(2) a reasonably accurate estimate of the period in
which the asset wastes, meaning the asset’s useful
life; and
(3) a reasonably accurate estimate of the value of the
asset over its useful life. A taxpayer’s failure to
prove any of the three prongs is fatal to its claim.
[Id. at 136.]
In FMR Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 402 (1998),
in disallowing amortization deductions relating to expenditures
incurred in launching a number of regulated investment companies,
we explained that the availability of an amortization deduction
relating to an intangible asset “is primarily a question of fact”
with the taxpayer bearing the burden of proof. Id. at 430
(citing Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 507 U.S. at
560, 566).
In Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 406
(1994), in disallowing claimed amortization deductions relating
to an employment contract, we explained that the taxpayer’s
burden of proof was “not insignificant and ‘that burden often
will prove too great to bear.’” Id. at 436 (quoting in part
Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, supra at 566).
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011