Vitamin Village, Inc. - Page 30




                                       - 30 -                                         
          receipts from the sale of suntan products grew to $2,999,000,               
          with $1,800,000 profit.                                                     
               The Court finds that petitioner showed a sufficient                    
          connection between the $1,105,276 paid in advertising expenses              
          and its business of producing and selling suntan lotion products.           
          Therefore, this Court finds petitioner is entitled to deduct the            
          $1,105,276 in advertising expenses under section 162(a) for FYE             
          June 30, 1996.                                                              
          IV. Floating Structures                                                     
               Petitioner contends that it may depreciate its cost of                 
          building the floating structures because the structures were used           
          primarily for business purposes.                                            
               Respondent does not dispute petitioner’s costs incurred                
          building the floating structures.  Rather, respondent contends              
          that petitioner failed to establish the floating structures were            
          used in petitioner’s business during the fiscal years at issue.             
               Section 167(a)(1) allows as a depreciation deduction a                 
          reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear, and                 
          obsolescence of property used in a trade or business.34  The                
          taxpayer bears the burden of proving the Commissioner’s                     
          determinations are incorrect.  Rule 142(a).  Furthermore, each              
          deduction must be carefully scrutinized when the taxpayer is a              

               34 Petitioner did not argue that the floating structures               
          were property held for the production of income under sec.                  
          167(a)(2) or that the floating structures qualify for                       
          depreciation as entertainment facilities under sec. 274(a)(1).              





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007