Alexander v. Comm'r
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Shaw v. Commissioner (In re Estate of Neumann) (United States Tax Court 1996)
- Norwest Corp. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1997)
- Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1997)
- Estate of Milada S. Neumann, Eric W. Shaw, Ancillary Administrator, C.T.A. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1996)
- Crowley v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1995)
- H Enters. Int'l v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1995)
- Kansas City S. Indus. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1992)
- Morales v. Commissioner (9th Cir. 2015)
- Law Office of John H. Eggertsen P.C. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Law Office of John H. Eggertsen P.C. v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
- Estate of Roberts v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2010)
- Alioto v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2008)
- Michael A. Zapara and Gina A. Zapara v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2006)
- John A. Francisco v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2002)
- Johnson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1999)
- Straight v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 1999)
- Norwest Corporation and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1997)
- Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1997)
- Michael Gatto Philip Gatto, Stephanie Gatto v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1993)
- Wooten v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1993)
- Chronicle Pub. Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*102 The Court filed its opinion in this case at
*468 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for reconsideration filed April 18, 1990. Petitioner Kathryn Molakides in docket No. 18367-86 filed notice of no objection to respondent's motion. No other petitioner has filed a response to respondent's motion.
Respondent asks us -- against his own interest -- to find that the at-risk rules of
On March 19, 1990, the Court filed its Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, which was reported at
The third issue we considered was whether the payees of promissory notes made by each of the limited partnerships *469 (except for CRI) held interests in the activities being financed, other than interests as creditors, within the meaning of
It is the policy of this Court to try all the issues raised in a case in one proceeding to avoid piecemeal and protracted litigation. The granting of a motion for reconsideration rests within the discretion of the Court, and will not be granted unless unusual circumstances or substantial error is shown.
Respondent's motion questions whether
*470
In his motion for reconsideration*108 respondent, for the first time, suggests that the limited partnerships were engaged in the leasing of
Respondent's entire argument on this point is as follows:
If the Court concludes that the petitioners were engaged in the leasing of
No reasoning or citations to the record or to law are offered to assist the Court in reaching such a conclusion. We conclude the activity in question is not an old activity.
The at-risk rules of
The term "
Computer software is intangible personal property.
*471
Sec. 1.167(a)-3 Intangibles.
If an intangible asset is known from experience or other factors to be of use in the business or in the production of income for only a limited period, the length of which can be estimated*110 with reasonable accuracy, such an intangible asset may be the subject of a depreciation allowance. Examples are patents and copyrights. An intangible asset, the useful life of which is not limited, is not subject to the allowance for depreciation. No allowance will be permitted merely because, in the unsupported opinion of the taxpayer, the intangible asset has a limited useful life. No deduction for depreciation is allowable with respect to goodwill. * * *
We hold that, in the present case, the computer software was not "property of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in
Accordingly, we hold that the software was not
Respondent alternatively argues that if the limited partnerships were not engaged in the activity of leasing
(3) Extension to Other Activities. -- (A) In General. -- In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 1978, this section also applies to each activity -- (i) *112 engaged in by the taxpayer in carrying on a trade or business or for the production of income, and (ii) which is not described in paragraph (1). * * * * (D) Application of Subsection (B)(3). -- In the case of an activity described in subparagraph (A), subsection (b)(3) shall apply only to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Respondent explains his argument in his motion for reconsideration*113 as follows:
In
* * * *
Notwithstanding the apparent application of
We agree with respondent.
The partnerships were not engaged in an activity listed in
*115 Respondent argues that under
*116 To reflect the foregoing,
APPENDIX
| Docket No. | Petitioner |
| 15015-86 | Charles F. and Yvette M. Alexander |
| 20946-86 | John J. Antel, Deceased, and Adelaide C. Antel |
| 20852-86 | David W. and Kathy Arana |
| 20389-86 | John T. and Mildred E. Bennett |
| 20497-86 | Allen K. and Patti R. Brooks |
| 21473-86 | Donald R. Chiamparino |
| 21101-86 | Gary E. and Nancy DeMartini |
| 21099-86 | Eddie S. and Janice Fink |
| 21084-86 | Felix and Elinor Gatto |
| 20388-86 | Gerald J. Gleason, Jr. |
| 20457-86 | Varney and Barbara Glowner |
| 20387-86 | Imelda Hampton |
| 21097-86 | Robert M. and Alicia P. Herman |
| 21102-86 | Melvyn L. and Maureen C. Hetzel |
| 20476-86 | Jo Ann Ison |
| 20205-86 | Richard F. and Carol Johnstone |
| 20498-86 | Michael Knaak |
| 20341-86 | William H. and Joan Kirk |
| 18488-86 | Estate of Lester L. Lewis, Deceased, Steve Wechsler, |
| Executor, and Florence Lewis | |
| 20875-86 | Abe S. and Sara Rae Miller |
| 18367-86 | George and Kathryn Molakides |
| 20403-86 | Giovanni P. and Ines B. Oldini |
| 20915-86 | Martin F. and Pattianne N. Parker |
| 20944-86 | Albert and Agnes Piccetti |
| 20404-86 | John and Nicole Piccetti |
| 20947-86 | Roy L. and Barbara Quilici |
| 20478-86 | Douglas N. and Elizabeth R. Reid |
| 21434-86 | Primo R. and Naomi J. Repetto |
| 21100-86 | Salvadore J. and Linda M. Rizzo |
| 20405-86 | Anthony J. and Barbara Ann Scafine |
| 21085-86 | Harold and Dorothy Siner |
| 20450-86 | Patricia A. Steele |
| 21382-86 | David W. and Kathleen Stell |
| 20342-86 | Gregg S. and Linda D. Taylor |
| 21018-86 | Lance Thomson |
| 20945-86 | Vondina W. Thomson |
| 20291-86 | Terry L. and Laurie S. Weitzman |
| 21483-86 | Jim D. White |
*475 Swift,
As the majority opinion explains and as respondent acknowledges in his motion for reconsideration, until respondent promulgates regulations under
As I understand the facts, the underlying activities engaged in by the partnerships involved in this case during the years in issue were research and development, not the leasing of property, and the deductions at issue relate to those research and development activities, not to the leasing of property. Accordingly, as new activities with respect to which regulations have not been promulgated, the at-risk rules of
Halpern,
The majority concludes that, because the computer software was not, during the years in issue, "property of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in
I believe the majority has interpreted
*121 Since the majority's opinion contains no indication that the limited partnerships had engaged in any leasing activities during the tax years at issue, I concur with the result reached by the majority.
Footnotes
1. The cases consolidated herewith are set forth in the appendix.↩
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and in effect for the years in issue.↩
3.
Sec. 465(c)(3)(E) was redesignated assec. 465(c)(3)(D)↩ by sec. 503(a), Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, 2243. All references made hereinafter are to the redesignated section.4.
SEC. 465 . DEDUCTIONS LIMITED TO AMOUNT AT RISK.(c) Activities to Which Section Applies. --
(1) Types of Activities. -- This section applies to any taxpayer engaged in the activity of --
(A) holding, producing, or distributing motion picture films or video tapes,
(B) farming (as defined in section 464(e)),
(C) leasing any
section 1245 property (as defined insection 1245(a)(3) ,(D) exploring for, or exploiting, oil and gas resources, or
(E) exploring for, or exploiting, geothermal deposits (as defined in section 613(e)(3))
as a trade or business or for the production of income.
[Sec. 465(c)(1)(E) was added by sec. 402(d), Energy Tax Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-618, 92 Stat. 3174, 3202-3203, and is generally effective for wells commenced on or after Oct. 1, 1978, in taxable years ending on or after such date. Sec. 402(e)(1), Energy Tax Act of 1978,supra↩ .]5. Because we conclude that the software was not
sec. 1245↩ property, we need not consider whether the limited partnerships were engaged in a leasing activity.6. The Treasury has proposed regulations explaining when a lender will be deemed to have an interest in an activity, other than that of a creditor.
Sec. 1.465-8, Proposed Income Tax Regs. ,44 Fed. Reg. 32238 (June 5, 1979). The proposed regulations mentionsec. 465(c)(3) , but do not address the application ofsec. 465(b)(3) to the new activities listed insec. 465(c)(3)(A) . Seesec. 1.465-1(c), Proposed Income Tax Regs. ↩7. The legislative history to the Revenue Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, 92 Stat. 2763, supports our interpretation of
sec. 465(c)(3)(D) . After discussingsec. 465(b)(3) , the House Committee Report states:Although this rule will continue to apply without change to the four specified activities, the bill provides that, in the case of the activities which are newly made subject to the at risk provision by the bill, this automatic nonrecourse provision shall apply only to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Treasury. The regulations may make this provision applicable to activities involving tax shelter characteristics, such as the presence of property the value of which is subject to substantial uncertainty, activities of a speculative nature, the unavailability of similar financing on similar terms from unrelated lenders and the presence of terms or conditions under which either the loan becomes nonrecourse in later taxable years or the taxpayer can convert the obligation from a recourse obligation to a nonrecourse or guaranteed) obligation in later years. [H. Rept. 95-1445, at 71 (1978),
1978-3 C.B. 181↩, 245 .]8. See also
.Zane v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1988-392↩9. In cases following
Jackson , we have utilized the proposed regulations interpretingsec. 465(b)(3)(A) as a guideline in cases involving "old" activities covered bysec. 465(c)(1) . See ;Levy v. Commissioner , 91 T.C. 838 (1988) , affd. in part and revd. in part sub nom.Larsen v. Commissioner , 89 T.C. 1229 (1987) ;Casebeer v. Commissioner , 909 F.2d 1360 (9th Cir. 1990) ;Bennion v. Commissioner , 88 T.C. 684 (1987) , affd.Waddell v. Commissioner , 86 T.C. 848 (1986)841 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1988) . Sincesec. 465(c)(3)(D) prohibits application ofsec. 465(b)(3) only to the "new" activities ofsec. 465(c)(3)(A)↩ until regulations are prescribed, the precedential value of these cases remains unchanged by our opinion in this case.1. With regard to whether the taxpayer has engaged in any leasing activities, the relevant legislative history provides that: "Under the at risk rule as it applies to equipment leasing, the taxpayer is considered to be in a leasing activity if he has an ownership interest, either direct or indirect, in
section 1245 property (as defined insec. 1245(a)(3)↩ ) which is leased or held for leasing." S. Rept. 94-938, at 85 (1976), 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 123. There is no reason to believe that the leasing of computer software should be treated differently.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.