Jenkins v. Commissioner
47 T.C.M. 238, 1983 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 121, 1983 T.C. Memo. 667 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Voluntary payments made by an individual to creditors of a separate entity can be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses under I.R.C. section 162 if the payments are proximately related to the individual's ongoing trade or business and are made primarily to protect their personal business reputation and earning capacity, rather than to protect an investment or out of a mere moral obligation.
Facts:
- Harold L. Jenkins, known professionally as Conway Twitty, was a highly successful country music entertainer whose income derived primarily from performances, songwriting, and record royalties, and he cultivated a strong public image.
- In 1968, Conway Twitty and several friends formed 'Twitty Burger, Inc.', an Oklahoma corporation, to operate and franchise fast-food restaurants, capitalizing on his fame.
- During late 1968 and early 1969, approximately 75 of Twitty's friends, acquaintances, and business associates invested money in Twitty Burger.
- In 1970, debentures were issued to these investors as interim evidence of their investment because stock registration for a public offering was delayed and ultimately deemed futile due to securities law violations.
- By late 1970, Twitty Burger experienced financial difficulties and was subsequently shut down, with the last restaurant (excluding one franchise) closing in May 1971, leaving no assets to repay the investors.
- Conway Twitty, although not legally obligated (as the debentures were not personally guaranteed), decided to repay the investors from his future earnings due to his concern for his reputation and a sense of moral obligation.
- During 1973 and 1974, Conway Twitty made personal payments totaling $92,892.46 and $3,600, respectively, to the Twitty Burger investors.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold L. Jenkins (Conway Twitty) filed his unmarried head of household Federal income tax return for 1973, and Harold L. and Temple M. Jenkins filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1974.
- On their 1973 and 1974 Federal income tax returns, petitioners deducted the payments made to Twitty Burger investors as bad debts or, alternatively, as ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 162.
- On December 19, 1978, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) mailed two separate notices of deficiency to petitioners, determining that these amounts were not deductible under either theory but were rather nondeductible personal expenses.
- Petitioners Harold L. and Temple M. Jenkins filed a petition with the United States Tax Court, challenging the Commissioner's determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a country music entertainer's voluntary repayment of investors in a defunct corporation bearing his stage name, from which he derived no direct legal liability, constitute an ordinary and necessary business expense deductible under I.R.C. section 162, when the payments are made primarily to protect his personal business reputation and earning capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Irwin
Yes, the payments made by Conway Twitty to the investors of Twitty Burger are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. The court applied the test established in Lohrke v. Commissioner, which requires ascertaining the taxpayer's primary purpose or motive for making the payments and determining if there is a sufficient, proximate connection between the expenditures and the taxpayer's ongoing trade or business. The court found that Conway Twitty's primary motive for repaying the investors was to protect his personal business reputation and earning capacity as a country music entertainer. The similarity of the corporation's name to his stage name, the involvement of many country music industry associates as investors, and expert testimony emphasizing the critical importance of a country entertainer's character and financial integrity to their career and fan base, all supported this finding. The potential for extensive adverse publicity and damage to his image, even without a successful lawsuit, was deemed a very real threat to his ongoing business. The court held that the absence of a legal obligation or the presence of a moral obligation does not preclude deductibility under section 162, so long as the business protection was the primary motivation and a proximate relationship existed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters of the 'ordinary and necessary' business expense deduction, particularly for public figures whose personal and professional identities are closely intertwined. It extends the principle from Welch v. Helvering by establishing that voluntary payments, even for debts of another entity, can be deductible if they are proximately related to the taxpayer's ongoing business and are made with the primary purpose of protecting one's business reputation and earning capacity. The decision underscores that in professions heavily reliant on public image and trust, such as entertainment, actions taken to preserve that image can be considered legitimate business expenditures, offering a critical precedent for similar unique factual scenarios where personal and corporate identities blur.
