- 59 -
compensation for the undisputed value of the expropriated assets
and have awarded anything in respect of the concession.
Respondent attaches to his brief a table (the table) purporting
to show that the going concern value of Aminoil on the
expropriation date did not exceed $206,041,000. Respondent
attempts to make that showing by a series of present value
calculations. There are clear errors of mathematics in the
table, and we fail to understand certain of respondent’s
assumptions. Also, we agree with petitioner that respondent may
have been too conservative in extending pre-expropriation profits
to post-expropriation years since the tribunal called for a post-
expropriation rate of return “somewhat more liberal” than
appropriate for the pre-expropriation period.
7. Conclusion
The parties agree that the intention of the tribunal governs
as to whether the disputed item is disguised compensation for the
concession or a payment in the nature of interest. Respondent
argues:
The ‘inflation’ factor, like the ‘interest’ factor, was
compensation for the delay in payment, and therefore,
it is properly treated as ordinary income under section
61. * * *
* * * * *
The law is well settled that, amounts awarded for delay
in payment constitute ordinary income under section 61.
Kieselbach v. Commissioner, 317 U.S. 399, 402-405
(1943); Tiefenbrunn v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1566
(1980); Smith v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 107 (1972).
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011