3-KOAM Company, A Partnership, My Hat, Inc., Tax Matters Partner - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          Santa Cruz.  After 4 weeks, 3-Koam determined that the games did            
          not attract sufficient customers and had no residual value; it              
          then abandoned the purported plan to distribute the games.                  
          Finally, 3-Koam never attempted to sell the games in an effort to           
          recoup some of its alleged $90,000 investment.                              
               The absence of arm's-length dealings among the parties, for            
          example, where two entities under common ownership are involved             
          in a "money movement transaction" is a factor often present in              
          sham transactions.  Karme v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 1163, 1186               
          (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1982).  In Karme, taking              
          into account the relationship between the two parties, we found             
          that the taxpayer was not genuinely at risk for any money,                  
          despite purported indebtedness between the entities.  Id. at                
          1189.  Two of 3-Koam's partners formed Inkax for the alleged                
          purpose of marketing video games for 3-Koam; plainly the                    
          partnerships are closely related.                                           
               On its 1990 Form 1065, 3-Koam deducted a $90,000 research              
          and development expense; however, neither 3-Koam nor Inkax ever             
          paid Dooyong for its development efforts.5  More importantly,               

          5    At trial and on brief, 3-Koam claims that Inkax's failure to           
          pay Dooyong has absolutely no bearing on the propriety of the               
          accrual by 3-Koam of the $90,000 research and development                   
          expenditure, because the taxpayer here is 3-Koam, not Inkax.  As            
          such, petitioner argues that 3-Koam properly "paid or accrued"              
          the amount claimed as a deduction pursuant to sec. 461(a).                  
          However, accounting methods or descriptions, without more, do not           
          lend substance to that which has no substance.  Frank Lyon Co. v.           
          United States, 435 U.S. 561, 577 (1978) (citing Commissioner v.             
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011