Jack Carson Coleman - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          are:1 (1) Whether payments received by petitioner are income in             
          respect of a decedent and therefore includable in his gross                 
          income under section 691(a);2 and (2) whether petitioner’s 1998             
          State income tax refund received during the taxable year 1999 is            
          includable in his 1999 gross income.                                        
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Petitioner Jack Carson Coleman resided in Colorado Springs,            
          Colorado, at the time his petition was filed.  Petitioner’s                 
          father (decedent) died intestate on January 3, 1993.  Before his            
          death, decedent sold Grossmont Animal Hospital to another                   
          veterinarian.  As part of the sales transaction, decedent signed            
          a 10-year agreement not to compete (agreement) in consideration             
          of 120 monthly payments of $1,000.                                          
               As of the date of decedent’s death, the unexpired portion of           
          the agreement consisted of 108 monthly payments and was included            
          in decedent’s estate.  For estate tax purposes the remaining                
          payments were assigned a value of $81,000, which reflected 75               
          percent of their face value (108,000 x 75%).  On February 10,               
          1998, decedent’s estate was closed and petitioner received, inter           


               1 On the basis of petitioner’s failure to file a responding            
          brief, respondent moved for dismissal of this case for lack of              
          prosecution.  Petitioner filed an objection to the motion and               
          requested a decision based on the hearing testimony and                     
          respondent’s brief.  We deny respondent’s motion and will decide            
          this case on its merits.                                                    
               2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in           
          effect for the year at issue.                                               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011