- 36 - In Danielson, the court bound the taxpayer to the terms of an agreement for the sale of his business that allocated a specific portion of the sales price to a covenant not to compete. Commissioner v. Danielson, supra at 778. Courts, however, have applied the Danielson rule beyond the confines of allocations of payments to a covenant not to compete. E.g., Schatten v. United States, supra at 321-322 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (whether payments from taxpayer's ex-husband were for property settlement or alimony); Bradley v. United States, 730 F.2d 718, 720 (11th Cir. 1984) (whether funds received from real property purchaser were interest income or payments on a continuing option); Spector v. Commissioner, 641 F.2d 376, 382 (5th Cir. 1981), revg. 71 T.C. 1017 (1979) (whether transaction in which taxpayer surrendered his partnership interest in an accounting firm was a sale or a liquidation); Coleman v. Commissioner, supra at 202 (whether the taxpayers had a depreciable interest in certain computer equipment involved in computer leasing arrangements). In refusing to permit the taxpayer to disavow the allocations specified in the contract, the court in Danielson stated that the policy considerations for the rule were the desire to avoid a unilateral reformation of a contract which could lead to possible unjust enrichment of one of the parties to the contract; a concern for predictability in allocating the taxPage: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011