Ledoux v. Commissioner
1981 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 82, 77 T.C. 293 (1981)
Rule of Law:
Under Internal Revenue Code Section 751, a partnership interest's sale that includes a contractual right to operate a business and earn future ordinary income for services to be rendered results in a portion of the gain being characterized as ordinary income, rather than capital gain, because such a right constitutes an 'unrealized receivable.'
Facts:
- Prior to July 1955, the Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc. (the corporation) held a greyhound racing permit and owned land and facilities for a racetrack in Seminole County, Florida.
- The corporation had an operating agreement with the Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club copartnership (composed of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Davey), which operated the track and paid 30% of its net profits to the corporation.
- On July 9, 1955, due to management problems, the copartnership entered a written agreement (dog track agreement) with Jerry Collins and Jack Collins to manage and operate the track for 20 years, with the Collinses agreeing to pay the copartnership the first $200,000 of net annual profit.
- On October 1, 1955, John W. Ledoux, Jerry Collins, and Jack Collins formed the Collins-Ledoux partnership to manage and operate the greyhound track, with Ledoux holding a 25% interest.
- The dog track agreement was subsequently amended on multiple occasions, including an amendment on January 25, 1957, to add John W. Ledoux as a party, and later extensions and modifications requiring significant partnership expenditures for track improvements and increased annual payments.
- From October 1, 1955, to September 30, 1972, the Collins-Ledoux partnership successfully operated the track, making substantial improvements to the corporation's property and acquiring adjacent land, leading to significant increases in both gross and net income.
- After the 1972 racing season, Jerry Collins and Jack Collins decided to purchase John W. Ledoux's 25% partnership interest, for which Ledoux proposed an $800,000 selling price based on capitalizing his 1972 annual income from the partnership by a factor of 5.
- On July 19, 1972, and again in a formal 'Agreement for Sale of Partnership Interest' on October 17, 1972, the parties executed an arm's-length agreement for the $800,000 sale, explicitly stating that 'no consideration has been given to any item of goodwill' and that Ledoux was selling his 'right to income' from the partnership.
- At the time of the sale, the partnership's balance sheet showed assets including an escrow deposit, prepaid expenses, stock, land, buildings, and equipment, but no specific allocation of the sales price was made to any particular asset.
Procedural Posture:
- The Respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) determined deficiencies in petitioners John W. Ledoux and Geraldine C. Ledoux's Federal income taxes for the calendar years 1972, 1973, and 1974, by statutory notice dated May 16, 1978.
- Petitioners John W. Ledoux and Geraldine C. Ledoux filed a petition with the United States Tax Court challenging the determined deficiencies.
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 any portion of the amount received by petitioner John W. Ledoux from the sale of his partnership interest constitute an 'unrealized receivable' under Internal Revenue Code Section 751 and thereby require characterization as ordinary income, rather than capital gain?
Opinions:
Majority - Sterrett, Judge
Yes, a portion of the amount received by John W. Ledoux on the sale of his 25-percent partnership interest was attributable to an "unrealized receivable" of the partnership and must be characterized as ordinary income. While Section 741 generally treats gain from the sale of a partnership interest as capital gain, Section 751 acts as an exception to prevent tax avoidance by recharacterizing gain attributable to "unrealized receivables" as ordinary income. Section 751(c) defines "unrealized receivables" broadly to include any contractual or other right to payment for services rendered or to be rendered, to the extent not previously included in income, provided such rights arose under existing contracts. The court found that the dog track agreement, which gave the Collins-Ledoux partnership the right to operate the greyhound racetrack and earn income for a period of years, was analogous to the management contracts deemed "unrealized receivables" in cases like United States v. Eidson and United States v. Woolsey. These precedents established that a right to earn ordinary income in the future, even if contingent on the performance of services, constitutes an unrealized receivable. The fact that the agreement did not mandate the partnership to perform services but rather conferred the right to engage in a business was not a material distinction, as the right itself enabled the earning of future ordinary income. The court rejected Ledoux's argument that the excess gain was attributable to goodwill or going concern value. The sales agreement explicitly stated that "no consideration has been given to any item of goodwill," and Ledoux failed to provide sufficient "strong proof" to challenge this arm's-length contractual allocation. Furthermore, the going concern value, which represents the additional value of a business continuing to function, was inextricably linked to the remaining partners' retention of the rights under the dog track agreement itself. Since Ledoux calculated the purchase price by capitalizing future earnings expected under the dog track agreement, and the sales agreement specifically included his "right to income," the court concluded that the gain in excess of his share of tangible assets was attributable to the unrealized receivable inherent in the dog track agreement, consistent with Treasury Regulation 1.751-1(c)(3) which gives weight to arm's-length agreements for valuing unrealized receivables.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the broad interpretation of "unrealized receivables" under Section 751 of the Internal Revenue Code, extending its reach beyond traditional accounts receivable to include contractual rights to future income derived from services or business operations. It highlights the importance of carefully drafting partnership sale agreements, particularly regarding the allocation of purchase price to specific assets, and the difficulty a taxpayer faces in challenging such allocations absent strong proof. The decision demonstrates that the right to earn future ordinary income, even if not an absolute obligation to perform services, can be subject to ordinary income treatment upon the sale of a partnership interest, impacting how business owners structure and value such transactions.
