Monthly Payments Pursuant to Divorce Settlement Agree-
ment-Alimony or Property Division-Reliance on Adviser
as Defense to Accuracy-Related Penalty.-Where 1985 property
settlement agreement approved by divorce court provided monthly
payments to W that were terminable at W's death; agreement pro-
vided both H and W waived spousal support and all property trans-
fers were reportable on respective income tax returns as "non-tax-
able event" under sec. 1041; after receiving favorable opinion letter
from law firm, H (and subsequently H's estate) deducted as sec. 215
alimony monthly cash payments to W on 1992-94 income tax
returns; and Commissioner determined payments were not alimony
and sec. 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty applied against H, Court
determined (1) monthly payments were not deductible by H as
alimony, since divorce instrument, which contained clear and
explicit direction that monthly payments were not includable in W's
income, did not have to mimic sec. 71(b)(1); and (2) sec. 6662(a)
accuracy-related penalty was inapplicable because of H's good faith.
reliance on counsel. Estate of Goldman v. Commissioner
See CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES.
Acquisition of Bank-Investigatory Costs, Due Diligence
Costs, and Officers' Salaries Attributable to Acquisition-
Capital or Currently Deductible.-Where in 1991 consolidated
income tax return predecessor of petitioner bank holding company
sought to deduct as ordinary and necessary business expenses
under sec. 162(a) investigatory costs, due diligence costs, and offi-
cers' salaries attributable to bank acquisition; and Commissioner
determined transaction costs were required to be capitalized under
sec. 263 and disallowed current deductions, Court determined
under sec. 162(a) petitioner could not deduct disputed costs since
they were sufficiently related to event that produced long-term
benefit. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992), fol-
lowed. Norwest Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner