Richard J. Borchers and Jane E. Borch-ers appeal the tax court’s decision denying them an investment tax credit on computer equipment Richard leased to the Borchers-es’ wholly-owned corporation, Decision Systems, Inc., in 1982. See 26 U.S.C. § 46(e)(3)(B) (1982) (amended 1988). We affirm.
This is the second time we have had this case before us. Initially the tax court held the Borcherses were entitled to an investment tax credit,
Borchers v. Commissioner,
The Borcherses argue that after we vacated and remanded the tax court’s first decision, the tax court could only explain, not change, the initial result. We disagree. Although our mandate controls all matters within its scope, a court on remand is free to revisit any issue we did not expressly or impliedly decide.
Newball v. Offshore Logistics Int'l,
We now turn to the merits of the case. A noncorporate lessor of property seeking an investment tax credit under 26 U.S.C. § 46(e)(3)(B) must show the property is leased for less than 50% of its useful life. Here, the leases’ terms are twelve months, and the computer equipment’s useful life is six years. Thus, the leases’ written terms are less than 50% of the equipment’s useful life. In determining the duration of the leases, however, the tax court used the “realistic contemplation” test.
The Borcherses had the burden to prove they realistically contemplated the leases would cover less than half of the equipment’s useful life.
Connor,
Reviewing the stipulated record, we find no clear error. Although the Borcherses showed the leases’ written terms were less than 50% of the equipment’s useful life, the record reflects the Borcherses controlled Decision Systems, Richard leased only to Decision Systems in 1982, and in 1983, Richard again leased to Decision Systems all the equipment purchased and leased to the corporation in 1982.
See
Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s decision.
