13
The Alternative Minimum Tax and Tax Credits
Solutions to Tax Research Problems
13-51 According to Ltr. Rul. 8349023 (8-31-83), the answer is yes, P will be allowed to
take the credit on her return in the year she places the office building into service.
In the letter ruling, it was held that a partnership that rehabilitated an old
commercial building, and was entitled to an investment tax credit based on
rehabilitation expenses incurred, may forgo claiming such credit and instead
allow it to be claimed by the buyers of the building on the basis of their pro rata
interest in the property as a further inducement to the purchase. This treatment
will be allowed only if the partnership does not claim the allowable credit and
does not place the building into service before the sale of the office units to the
prospective buyers.
13-52 The Court, in E. W. Zoltan, 79 TC 490, permitted the taxpayer to claim the credit
for the portion of the costs incurred in sending her son on a week-long school
field trip during a period when school was not in session. However, because a
substantial purpose of the trip was educational, an allocation was required
between qualifying and non-qualifying expenses, and the transportation issue was
clarified.
The cost of transportation of a qualifying individual to a place where care is
provided outside the household is not considered to be incurred for the
individual’s care [Reg. § 1.44A-1(c)(3)]. The Court held, however, that the
expenses incurred for the transportation of the taxpayer’s son to Washington are
not disqualified by this language. The cost of transportation from her home to the
place of departure of the bus to Washington is the type of expense that this
language excludes. The care of her son commenced at that point. The
transportation by bus to Washington began after her son was placed under the
care of the supervisors of the expedition. This transportation was inseparably tied
to that care, and does not fit within the disallowance provisions of Reg. § 1.44A-
1(c)(4).
On the other hand, the Court held that a substantial portion of the expense
incurred by the taxpayer to send her son to Washington constituted an educational
expense of the type subject to allocation pursuant to Reg. §§ 1.44A-1 (c)(3)(ii)
and 1.44A-1(c)(5). Since neither the taxpayer nor the IRS made the allocation to
educational expenses, the Court made one utilizing the Cohan rule, which requires
an allocation that bears heavily against the taxpayer.
To summarize, when the characterization of an expense is challenged under §
44A(c)(2)(A)(ii), the issue is resolved by reference to the specific facts at hand;
the Court must ascertain the taxpayer’s motive. If the disputed expense was
incurred with the dominant purpose of permitting the taxpayer to be gainfully