Heritage Auto Center, Inc. - Page 15

                                        - 15 -                                        
          its 1988 Federal income tax return, petitioner deducted $187,500            
          for amortization of the covenant not to compete and $187,500 for            
          amortization of the consulting agreement for a total deduction of           
          $375,000.  In 1989 and 1990, petitioner deducted $225,000 for               
          amortization of both the covenant not to compete and the                    
          consulting agreement for a total deduction of $450,000 each year.           
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed                     
          petitioner's 1988 and 1989 deductions.  Respondent tentatively              
          allowed petitioner's deductions of $383,165 and $151,023 for the            
          taxable years 1988 and 1989, respectively, for the carryback of a           
          net operating loss (NOL) from petitioner's 1990 Federal income              
          tax return.  The NOL reported on petitioner's 1990 Federal income           
          tax return resulted in part from deductions totaling $450,000 for           
          amortization of the amounts allocated to the covenant not to                
          compete and the consulting agreement.                                       
               By amended answer, respondent disallowed the 1990 deductions           
          related to the covenant not to compete and the consulting                   
          agreement, thereby reducing petitioner's NOL carrybacks to 1988             
          and 1989 by $450,000.  Thus, respondent limited petitioner's                
          claimed NOL for 1988 and 1989 to only $84,188 for 1988.                     
                                       OPINION                                        
          Issue 1. Whether the Final Agreement Is Amortizable                         
               Respondent disallowed petitioner's deductions for the                  
          amortization of the final agreement.  Respondent argues that the            
          payments were, in substance, payments for the sale of                       




Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011