- 17 -
the agreement on the ground that the taxpayer had failed
to introduce sufficient justification to be relieved of its
terms. In Hamlin's Trust v. Commissioner, supra at 765,
the court states as follows:
While acting at arm's length and understandingly,
the taxpayers agreed without condition or quali-
fication that the money received should be on the
basis of $150 per share for the stock and $50 per
share for the agreement not to compete. Having
thus agreed, the taxpayers are not at liberty to
say that such was not the substance and reality
of the transaction. [Citations omitted.]
In Clesceri v. United States, 45 AFTR 2d 80-634, at 80-638,
79-2 USTC par. 9738, at 88,739, the court stated as
follows:
In summary, we hold that, where the parties
to a sales agreement have assigned a value to a
covenant, strong proof must be adduced for either
of them to overcome or modify the allocation. We
further hold that evidence indicating that the
covenant lacks economic reality is not "strong
proof" justifying disregarding the parties'
allocation. * * *
For other cases in which the taxpayers sought to vary
the terms of a contractual allocation, see generally
Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1967),
vacating 44 T.C. 549 (1965); Ullman v. Commissioner, 264
F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1959), affg. 29 T.C. 129 (1957).
Contrary to the implication of petitioners' argument,
neither the Commissioner nor this Court is bound to accept
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011