- 12 -
The litigation arose because petitioner caused Madison to
issue additional shares of stock to himself, and he attempted to
have Madison redeem shares of stock from Elmer's heirs. Peti-
tioner, in his counterclaim, sought to enforce an agreement to
purchase 600 shares from Elmer's estate in order to equalize the
stock ownership as between the families. The claims have their
origin in the protection, defense, and acquisition of peti-
tioner's ownership interest in Madison stock. While petitioner's
purpose in undertaking the litigation might have included
protecting his job, this is not determinative under the origin-
of-the-claim test. See Bradford v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 584,
591 (1978); see also Mitchell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-
237 (and cases cited therein), affd. 73 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 1996).
Petitioner, through litigation, sought to establish his ownership
of additional shares of Madison stock. We conclude that the
litigation costs were incurred to defend, protect, and acquire
petitioner's title to the Madison stock and therefore constitute
nondeductible capital expenditures which should be added to the
basis of petitioner's Madison stock. See Galewitz v. Commis-
sioner, 411 F.2d 1374 (2d Cir. 1969), revg. 50 T.C. 104 (1968);
Lin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-581. Accordingly, we
sustain respondent's determination in the notice of deficiency.
To reflect the foregoing,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011