Frontier Chevrolet Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 5674·329 F.3d 1131·91 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2338·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4425·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 28, 200301-71815California1,611 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

Frontier Chevrolet Company (“Frontier”) appeals the tax court’s decision that I.R.C. § 197 (“ § 197”) applied to a covenant not to compete entered into in connection with Frontier’s redemption of 75% of its stock. We agree with the tax court that Frontier’s redemption was an indirect acquisition of an interest in a trade or business; therefore Frontier had to amortize the covenant under § 197.

BACKGROUND

A.

The facts are set forth as stipulated by the parties before the tax court. At the time Frontier filed its petition with the Tax court, it was a corporation with its principal place of business in Billings, Montana. Frontier engaged in the trade or business of selling and servicing new and used vehicles. Roundtree Automotive Group, Inc. (“Roundtree”) was a corporation engaged in the trade or business of purchasing and operating automobile dealerships and providing consulting services to those dealerships. Frank Stinson (“Stinson”) was the President of Round-tree and participated in Frontier’s management from 1987 to 1994.

In 1987, Roundtree purchased all of Frontier’s stock. Consistent with Round-tree and Stinson’s policy of management, Frontier filled the position…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.