Jimmy D. Morris, Transferee - Page 15




                                               - 15 -                                                  
                 1.  Claimed Selling Expenses                                                          
                 Petitioner argues that $13,873 of claimed selling expenses                            
            should be netted from the gross amounts transferred to him by                              
            ACT.  The record is largely silent about these claimed selling                             
            expenses, who incurred them, when, or why.  Petitioner’s position                          
            here is inconsistent with his concession in Briggs v.                                      
            Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-380, that the full $199,490 is                               
            includable in his gross income.  In Briggs, petitioner did not                             
            claim any deduction or offset for the $13,873 of claimed selling                           
            expenses.  As previously noted, petitioner has agreed to be bound                          
            by the record compiled in Briggs.  Petitioner has failed to                                
            establish his entitlement to any offset for selling expenses                               
            here.                                                                                      
                 2.  Amounts Attributable to Covenant Not To Compete                                   
                 Petitioner argues that $82,600 of the transfers in question,                          
            representing one-fourth of the $330,400 initial payment from JSL                           
            with respect to the $500,000 agreed-upon consideration for the                             
            covenant not to compete, represents his own income rather than a                           
            transfer from ACT.  We disagree.                                                           
                 The UFTA defines “Transfer”, in relevant part, as “every                              
            mode, direct or indirect, * * * of disposing of or parting with                            


                  12(...continued)                                                                     
            See Powers Photo Engraving Co. v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 393                                
            (1951), remanded on other grounds 197 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1952);                             
            Griffiths v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-637.                                            





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011