-28--28-
determination that the settlement proceeds received in 1988 and
1989 are includable in gross income will be sustained.
City of Irwindale Agreement
Respondent contends that a valid debt did not exist with
regard to the Irwindale MOA. Respondent asserts that the Raiders
had no obligation to repay the initial $10-million advance unless
Irwindale was successful in funding the remainder of the loan by
certain deadlines. Furthermore, respondent points to the
provision for repayment solely from a percentage of the profits
from the stadium as further evidence that the obligation to repay
was conditional.
Under the terms of the Irwindale MOA, the Raiders did not
control whether or not the $10 million would be repaid.
Irwindale was required under the Irwindale MOA to provide sites
for the stadium and other Raiders' facilities and to provide full
funding of the loan. Otherwise, the Raiders would be relieved of
their obligation to repay the initial advance. Unlike the LAMCC
loan, the advance was not under the Raiders' complete dominion
and control at the time the Raiders received the $10 million.
See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
If Irwindale had provided the additional $105 million to the
Raiders, under the terms of the Irwindale MOA, those funds would
have been used to construct the stadium and other Raiders'
facilities in Irwindale, as well as to facilitate the move of the
Raiders' personnel to Irwindale. Respondent’s argument that the
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