Bush Terminal Buildings Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

2 Citing cases

  1. Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    38 T.C. 557 (U.S.T.C. 1962)   Cited 14 times

    It is well established by decisions of this and other courts that expenditures relating to a recapitalization or reorganization of a corporation are not ordinary and necessary business expenses within the meaning of the statute. Motion Picture Capital Corp. v. Commissioner, (C.A. 2) 80 F.2d 872; Skenandoa Rayon Corp. v. Commissioner, (C.A. 2) 122 F.2d 268, affirming 42 B.T.A. 1287, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 696; Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. Commissioner, (C.A. 3) 148 F.2d 460, affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Bush Terminal Buildings Co. v. Commissioner, (C.A. 2) 204 F.2d 575, affirming 17 T.C. 485, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 856; Bush Terminal Buildings Co., 7 T.C. 793; Odorono Co., 26 B.T.A. 1355; Richard H. Survaunt, 5 T.C. 665, affd. (C.A. 8) 162 F.2d 753; Denver & Salt Lake Railway Co., 24 T.C. 709, petition for review dismissed (C.A. 10); and International Building Co. v. United States, (E.D. Mo.) 97 F.Supp. 595, affirmed on this issue (C.A. 8) 199 F.2d 12, reversed on another issue 345 U.S. 502. The cases generally hold that such expenditures are not ‘ordinary’ in the conduct of business within the meaning of the statute.

  2. Denver & Salt Lake Ry. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    24 T.C. 709 (U.S.T.C. 1955)   Cited 6 times

    This being true, they represent capital expenditures and as such, are not deductible. Bush Terminal Buildings Co., 17 T.C. 485, affd. 204 F.2d 575, following Bush Terminal Buildings Co., 7 T.C. 793. See also Motion Picture Capital Corp. v. Commissioner, 80 F.2d 872, affirming 32 B.T.A. 339. Gt. W. Power Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 543, and other cases of like import relied upon by petitioner are distinguishable on their facts and the rationale thereof is not considered applicable.