-27--27-
litigation. Whether the amount represented damages for
wrongful injury to the petitioner’s good will, or
whether it represented damages for loss of profits, or
indeed whether the amount was simply paid by the
defendants to avoid further expense and harassment
resulting from long continued litigation, does not
definitely appear.
However, upon examination of the declarations in
the two actions referred to, we are unable to conclude
that the plaintiff there was seeking damages only for
alleged injury to its goodwill. * * * [Id. at 321.]
While petitioners are not required to prove that the
settlement proceeds are clearly classifiable as what they claim
them to be, petitioners must show by a preponderance of the
evidence the merits of their claim that the settlement was
received for damage to goodwill. Getty v. Commissioner, 913 F.2d
at 1492; Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.
1975), affg. T.C. Memo. 1972-133. The preponderance of the
evidence here shows that the damages that the Raiders sought were
for lost profits. The 82-page damage study referred to the
damages incurred as lost revenue and lost income. The notice of
claim, which also listed alleged damages, referred to extra
expenses incurred and lost revenues. The Raiders have failed to
provide us with a basis upon which to estimate any portion of the
settlement that relates to damage to goodwill. See Bresler v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 182, 188 (1975) (estimation that a portion
of antitrust settlement was for injury to goodwill possible when
evidence showed business had failed as a result of the actions
from which the lawsuit arose). Therefore, respondent’s
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011