Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         
          performing services has been held to be the equivalent of                   
          affirmative personal services.  Patterson v. Commissioner, 810              
          F.2d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-53; Salvage            
          v. Commissioner, 76 F.2d 112, 113-114 (2d Cir. 1935), affd. 297             
          U.S. 106 (1936); Cox v. Helvering, 71 F.2d 987, 988 (D.C. Cir.              
          1934); Ullman v. Commissioner, 29 T.C. 129, 139 (1957), affd. 264           
          F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1959).  However, this rule has been applied               
          only for purposes of determining that a payment received for such           
          a covenant constitutes income to the recipient.5  Such                      
          application is appropriate given the exceedingly broad definition           
          of income.  The definition of trade or business, on the other               
          hand, is more narrow as noted by the Supreme Court in                       
          Commissioner v. Groetzinger, supra at 35.  We, therefore, decline           
          to treat the absence of activity resulting from a covenant not to           
          compete as equivalent to the affirmative performance of such                
          activity for purposes of applying the definition of a trade or              
          business in this context.  Accordingly, we find that the payment            
          made by Landmark to petitioner pursuant to the terms of the                 
          nonsponsorship and noncompetition clause contained in their 1985            

          5Similarly, in Schaefer v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 227                       
          (1995), we sustained a Treasury regulation under which income               
          from a covenant not to compete is not considered “passive” income           
          for purposes of sec. 469.  In Schaefer, we dealt only with the              
          validity of a regulation that specifically classified income from           
          a covenant not to compete as nonpassive income.  We did not deal            
          with the more narrow question of whether the income from such a             
          covenant is derived from a trade or business regularly carried on           
          within the meaning of the unrelated business income tax, which              
          confronts us in the present case.                                           




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