DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 12

                                        - 101 -                                       
          States for a period of years as additional noncash consideration,           
          citing Alstores Realty Corp. v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 363 (1966).           
               Respondent’s notice determination was based on alternative             
          valuation dates in 1990 and 1992.  The use of two possible dates            
          is likely due to confusion over when the DHL trademark should be            
          valued.  The confusion probably arose because the transaction and           
          prices to be paid were agreed to during 1990 and the actual sale            
          or exchange occurred in 1992.  We have no question about the fact           
          that the taxable event occurred in 1992, and any additional                 
          capital gain from petitioner’s sale of its interest in the DHL              
          trademark would be includable in the 1992 taxable year.13  On               
          brief, respondent advances only the 1990 valuations of his                  
          experts, and petitioners do not argue that 1992 would be the more           
          appropriate year for valuation.  Petitioners, on brief, argue               
          that any capital gains adjustment attributable to the sale of the           
          trademark should be recognized in 1992.  It therefore appears               
          undisputed that any such adjustment should be recognized in 1992,           
          but valued as of the time the right to acquire was created (1990)           
          for purposes of section 482.14                                              




               13  On brief, both parties advocated 1992 as the year of any           
          recognition of income from the trademark sale.                              
               14  Petitioners also argued that the sale of the trademark             
          occurred after the foreign investors gained collective control of           
          the international entity so that sec. 482 should not apply for              
          lack of the requisite control.  We have already addressed that              
          question and resolved it adversely to petitioners.                          



Page:  Previous  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011