- 2 -
Held: Under the regulations, R is not required
to be aware of arm’s-length circumstances as a
prerequisite to the making of a determination
allocating a cost in connection with a sharing
agreement. Held further: Petitioner has not shown
that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
Mark A. Oates, Thomas V.M. Linguanti, John M. Peterson, Jr.,
Mary E. Wynn, and Andrew P. Crousore, for petitioner.
Debra K. Estrem, Jeffrey A. Hatfield, Michael J. Cooper,
Bryce A. Kranzthor, Ewan D. Purkiss, and Mark S. Heroux, for
respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GERBER, Judge: Petitioner moved for partial summary
judgment1 concerning what has been denominated the “section 4822
stock option cost-sharing issue”. In particular, petitioner
questions whether respondent may employ section 482 to make an
1 Petitioner has filed two motions for partial summary
judgment. This opinion addresses the issue that the parties have
denominated the “section 482 stock option cost-sharing issue”.
The other summary judgment motion involves what has been
denominated the “Read-Rite issue”, addressing whether the
“relation back doctrine” established in Arrowsmith v.
Commissioner, 344 U.S. 6 (1952), applies in characterizing
petitioner’s gain on the sale of stock for purposes of sec. 954.
See Seagate Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
361.
2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the 1990, 1991, and 1992 tax years, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,
unless otherwise indicated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011