- 6 -
claimed, even capital deductions. INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).
Petitioner cavalierly relies on Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930) to assert that
the remaining expenses are deductible and thus this
Court should allow a greater deduction than the
$1,800,354 already permitted by respondent. Petitioner
bases this belief on the fact that because account
101226, of which petitioner alleges the remaining
$2,324,193 was credited, is labeled “TIF Moving
Expenses,” and because the TIF Subsidy was given in
connection with Culinary, then all of the $2,324,193
[now reduced to $2,007,640] in dispute must represent
moving expenses of food processing equipment for which
petitioner is entitled to capitalize [the cost] over a
five year time period. Petitioner has no evidence to
substantiate this allegation.
Respondent’s primary criticism of petitioner’s evidence is that
the list of expenditures on which petitioner relies is for the
entire calendar year 1995 and cannot be allocated to the fiscal
years before the Court. Respondent points out that the list of
vendors contains no information regarding the nature of the
expense or when within the calendar year 1995 the expense was
incurred. Respondent concludes that “petitioner wants this Court
to make a leap of faith without any corroborating evidence that
the remaining amounts in issue were for the purchase, the
installation, or the moving of equipment for use in Culinary’s
processing facility.” Respondent emphasizes petitioner’s status
in the industry and its employment of in-house and outside
accountants and tax preparers “who were well aware of the record
keeping requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007