- 14 - The document purports to sell certain “patent rights” owned by ERG to NPI and simultaneously grants ERG an exclusive license to use the patent rights transferred. * * * [Benson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-272; fn. refs. omitted.]. We found that “the exclusive licensing agreement was merely a tax planning tool, completely lacking in economic substance. * * * As the arbitrators found, the pattern of payment demonstrates that Burton [Benson] was merely funneling ERG’s profits to NPI.” Id. We find that the disclosures of royalties on NPI’s returns were misleading. The returns of NPI failed to disclose that it received the royalties from a related corporation, ERG, or that Burton Benson acted on behalf of both corporations involved in the transaction. The returns of NPI failed to disclose that ERG sold patent rights to NPI and simultaneously licensed those rights back from NPI in the exclusive licensing agreement. Also, the “royalties” label listed on the returns of NPI was misleading and inadequate to apprise respondent that the transactions constituted a tax planning tool completely lacking in economic substance.8 Because the royalties disclosures in the returns of NPI were misleading, they fail to satisfy section 6501(e)(1)(A)(ii). 8 With respect to the 1993 royalty payments, Burton Benson prepared invoices in response to a meeting with a revenue agent-- “these invoices were not created contemporaneously with payment and/or the receipt of services.” Benson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-272.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011