Peters, Gamm, West & Vincent, Inc., Richard L. West, Judith L. West, Marc A. Vincent, Deborah S. Vincent, Gary L. Gamm and Connie F. Gamm - Page 13

                                         13                                           
          his wife, who stood to gain control of his three incorporated               
          auto dealerships.  The taxpayer argued that because he faced                
          losing control of his corporations, the legal expenses were                 
          incurred in the defense or preservation of income-producing                 
          property.  The Court declined to attach controlling importance to           
          the consequences that the taxpayer faced, but rather examined               
          whether the claim arose in connection with the taxpayer's profit-           
          seeking activity.  The Court did not allow the deductions because           
          the wife's claims stemmed from the marital relationship, and not            
          from any income-producing activity of the taxpayer.  United                 
          States v. Gilmore, supra at 51; see Kornhauser v. United States,            
          supra at 153.                                                               
               Respondent argues that the origin of the SEC's claim did not           
          arise from PGWV's trade or business, and that under United States           
          v. Gilmore, supra, the consequences to PGWV are irrelevant to the           
          analysis.  Respondent also argues that the origin of the claim              
          was not in PGWV's trade or business because IMG's partnership               
          agreement specifically excluded the ERG deal, and that Peters'              
          activities were not a business activity of IMG or PGWV.                     
          Petitioners argue that the alleged claim had its origin in the              
          trade or business of the firm, which was in the business of                 
          acting as an investment adviser, and therefore deduction of the             
          legal expenses incurred in defending such action is not barred by           
          United States v. Gilmore, supra.                                            






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011