R. William Becker and Mary Ann Becker - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          1963), affg. T.C. Memo. 1961-170, as the “seminal case” on the              
          subject.                                                                    
               In Annabelle Candy Co., a dispute arose between the two                
          stockholders of Annabelle Candy Company (Annabelle Candy), which            
          resulted in one stockholder’s selling his stock to the                      
          corporation.  Annabelle Candy Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 2-3.            
          The agreement provided that the stockholder would be paid                   
          $115,000 over a period of time and included a covenant not to               
          compete.  Id. at 3.  The agreement made no allocation of any                
          portion of the total consideration to the covenant, and there               
          were no discussions prior to the signing of the agreement                   
          concerning the allocation of a portion of the purchase price to             
          the covenant.  Id.  Subsequent to the signing of the agreement,             
          Annabelle Candy unilaterally allocated a portion of the purchase            
          price to the covenant not to compete without the consent of the             
          stockholder and amortized the allocated portion on its corporate            
          tax return.  Id. at 4.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth                  
          Circuit (Ninth Circuit) stated:                                             
               In the purchase agreement involved in the case before                  
               us, there is no allocation of consideration to the                     
               covenant not to compete.  While this is pretty good                    
               evidence that no such allocation was intended it is not                
               conclusive on the parties as would be the case if there                
               had been an express affirmance or disavowal in the                     
               agreement.  * * *  It is true * * * that the covenant                  
               not to compete played a very real part in the                          
               negotiation of a final contract between the parties,                   
               and was a valuable benefit to the petitioner.  But if                  
               the parties did not intend that a purchase price be                    






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011