INDOPCO, INC.

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• Presley v. Etowah Cnty. Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1992)
  …hat the Common Fund Resolution in Etowah County did not effect a significant change and adoption of the Unit System in Russell County did not transfer authority among officials responsible to different constituencies. We noted probable jurisdiction. 500 U. S. 914 (1991). We affirm the District Court but adopt a different interpretation of § 5 as the rationale for our decision. II We first considered the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966). Although we acknowledged that s…
• Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 503 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1992)
  …coln Savings & Loan Assn., 403 U. S. 345, 354 (1971), they could not be capitalized and therefore were deductible under § 162(a). 918 F. 2d, at 428-431. We granted certiorari to resolve a perceived conflict on the issue among the Courts of Appeals.3 500 U. S. 914 (1991). II Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code allows the deduction of “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” 26 U. S. C. § 162(a). In contrast, §263 of the…