Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1974
Publication Information
15 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 443 (1973-1974)
Abstract
Should expenditures that have an impact on a company’s production beyond one tax year be capitalized for tax purposes? How can these be distinguished from the “ordinary and necessary expenses” of a business? Is it reasonable to permit a current deduction for these expenditures? While a capitalized expenditure has often been seen as an expenditure that has produced an “asset”, there is no clear rule on what is an asset how to define it. The article examines these issues, with a discussion of the statutory provisions concerning capital expenditures and the problem of whether capitalization is a method of accounting. It focuses on three kinds of expenditure problems: 1) The capital nature of ground rent and insurance during the construction of a building 2) The capital nature of educational expenditures 3) The capital nature of costs of expanding a business. The article concludes by arguing that capitalized expenditures should be defined as costs that produce or enhance an asset. The types of expenditures that can be capitalized is dependent on whether the asset is a tangible property or something less tangible in tax terms, like a new job or a contract right.
Recommended Citation
Alan Gunn,
The Requirement that a Capital Expenditure Create or Enhance an Asset,
15 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 443 (1973-1974).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/43
Comments
Reprinted with permission of the Boston College Industrial & Commercial Law Review (now BC Law Review).