- 11 -
On the contrary, the record demonstrates that petitioner
fully appreciated Evans’ marketability and earning potential in
the medical profession. Petitioner testified that Evans was “way
over-qualified for running [the] Clinic”, and petitioner
increased Evans’ salary from $60,000 per year in 1987 to $100,000
in 1995, the year petitioner fired Evans. Petitioner also
testified that, precisely because of Evans’ professional
marketability, he sued Evans for the noncompete agreement.
Petitioner stated that he sought the noncompete agreement from
Evans because Evans was an “ophthalmic management guru” and
because several medical practices in the area would have hired
Evans “immediately” had they known he was available. We
therefore find some dissonance in petitioner’s arguing, in one
instance, that it would be nearly impossible to collect the debt,
while in another arguing that Evans had highly marketable
managerial skills for which petitioner wanted the noncompete
agreement.
Overall, the record demonstrates that petitioner could have
recovered at least some portion of the uncollected amount lent to
Evans. See Buchanan v. United States, supra at 198-199
(criterion for worthlessness is interpreted strictly, and the
deduction is unavailable if even a modest fraction of the debt
can be recovered); Bodzy v. Commissioner, 321 F.2d 331, 335 (5th
Cir. 1963) (“last vestige of value” must have “disappeared”),
affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1962-40; Clanton v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-416 (partial worthlessness is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011