- 20 - to the agreement would be admissible to alter that construction or to show its unenforceability because of mistake, undue influence, fraud, duress, etc. Id. at 775. Prior to October 1, 1991, the Fifth Circuit adopted the Danielson rule in Spector v. Commissioner, 641 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1981), revg. 71 T.C. 1017 (1979). See Bonner v. City of Prichard, supra at 1207. The Eleventh Circuit has also explicitly adopted the Danielson rule. Bradley v. United States, 730 F.2d 718, 720 (11th Cir. 1984) (affirming a District Court holding that payments received were interest income pursuant to a sale rather than an option to purchase because the contract called for interest payments); see also Thomas v. Commissioner, 67 Fed. Appx. 582 (11th Cir. 2003) (affirming, inter alia, that the taxpayers were bound by the allocation to the covenant not to compete contained in a stock purchase agreement), affg. T.C. Memo. 2002-108; Plante v. Commissioner, 168 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirming that the taxpayer was not entitled to a bad debt deduction and associated carryover losses because stock purchase agreement was unambiguous that advances were capital contributions and not debt), affg. T.C. Memo. 1997-386. C. Positions of the Parties William Becker and respondent contend that the Danielson rule controls. They argue that, because the purchase documents unambiguously allocate the entire consideration paid in thePage: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011