- 25 -
and for the equipment used to broadcast. Jefferson-Pilot Corp.
v. Commissioner, supra at 447.
Neither the language of section 1253(a) nor our opinion in
Jefferson-Pilot supports petitioner's position. Section 1253(a)
provides that the transfer of a franchise will not be treated as
the sale or exchange of a capital asset so long as the transferor
retains a significant power, right, or continuing interest with
respect to the subject matter of the franchise. The necessary
implication is that a franchise can be transferred without the
retention by the transferor of any significant degree of control.
In such a case, the transfer will be treated as the sale or
exchange of a capital asset, and the transferee will not be
permitted to amortize any portion of the purchase price. See
sec. 1253(d)(2) (prior to amendment by OBRA sec. 13261(c)).
Indeed, if petitioner's argument were correct, section 1253(a)
would have been altogether unnecessary, as the sale of a
franchise would only occur where the transferor retained a
significant interest in the franchise. However, as we explained
in Jefferson-Pilot Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 441-442 n.7:
Sec[tion] 1253 requires a two-step analysis. First, we
must determine if the interest transferred was a
"franchise" as defined in sec[tion] 1253(b)(1); then we
determine whether a significant power was retained.
Limiting the definition of "franchise" based on
inferences from the retained powers requirement begs
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011