- 14 -
concern that the payments to Brigitte were for a purpose other
than to prevent competition. See id.; Ackerman v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1968-254.
Petitioners contend that respondent's reallocation between
the stock redemption and the covenant not to compete is
erroneous. Petitioners focus their argument on respondent's
assumption and conclusion regarding the health and abilities of
Brigitte. Petitioners do not dispute that Brigitte died from
cirrhosis of the liver; however, petitioners explain that
Brigitte's health complications occurred and became known to the
parties after the agreements were executed.
Petitioners had ample opportunity to dispel respondent's
erroneous assumption, yet they failed to do so. On at least two
occasions, respondent's agent sought access to Brigitte's medical
records only to be denied the opportunity by petitioners.
Petitioners also argue that they computed the value
allocated to the covenant several times and that their valuation,
and not respondent's valuation, is correct. This may very well
be true, but petitioners failed to produce their computations or
deliver them to respondent when requested. In fact, the record
indicates that petitioners were uncooperative with respondent up
until early 1995, shortly before these cases were scheduled for
trial.
Having reviewed these cases based upon the available
information, we find respondent's position credible. Petitioners
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011