Menard, Inc. - Page 74

                                       - 71 -                                         
          business.60  JRJ Express, Inc. provides an example of self-                 
          promotion as the taxpayer’s primary purpose.  In JRJ Express,               
          Inc., the taxpayer was a courier business that delivered letters            
          and small packages from the United States to Guatemala.  The                
          taxpayer’s sole shareholder’s brothers owned and controlled                 
          several Guatemalan companies that made similar deliveries from              
          Guatemala to the United States and used the same company logo as            
          the taxpayer.  Pursuant to an oral agreement, the taxpayer paid             
          the Guatemalan companies’ inbound expenses, in exchange for which           
          the Guatemalan companies printed and stuffed promotional                    
          materials advertising the taxpayer’s business in all Guatemalan             
          mail bound for U.S. destinations.  Id.                                      
               We concluded in JRJ Express, Inc. that the taxpayer’s                  
          payments were primarily intended to protect or promote the                  
          taxpayer’s delivery service.  Because of the nature of the                  
          taxpayer’s business, the promotion and marketing process was the            
          business’s “centerpiece”.61  Through the insertion of                       


               60Another consideration under the first prong of the Lohrke            
          test, not applicable to the present case, is whether the taxpayer           
          faced a “‘clear proximate danger’” and made payments “‘to protect           
          an existing business from harm’”.  Bone v. Commissioner, T.C.               
          Memo. 2001-43; JRJ Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1998-200 (quoting Young & Rubicam, Inc. v. United States, 187 Ct.           
          Cl. 635, 410 F.2d 1233, 1243 (1969)).                                       
               61In JRJ Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, we also noted           
          that, due to the transient nature of many Guatemalan workers in             
          the United States, the taxpayer’s business faced a “clear                   
          proximate danger” if the taxpayer could not maintain a “fluid               
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011