Klitzner v. Commissioner

1964 T.C. Memo. 263, 23 T.C.M. 1601, 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 6, 1964
DocketDocket Nos. 4768-62, 4769-62.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1964 T.C. Memo. 263 (Klitzner v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Klitzner v. Commissioner, 1964 T.C. Memo. 263, 23 T.C.M. 1601, 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75 (tax 1964).

Opinion

Louis A. Klitzner and Isabel S. Klitzner v. Commissioner. Harry F. Leshnower and Ruth S. Leshnower v. Commissioner.
Klitzner v. Commissioner
Docket Nos. 4768-62, 4769-62.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1964-263; 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75; 23 T.C.M. (CCH) 1601; T.C.M. (RIA) 64263;
October 6, 1964
W. Stuart McCloy, for the petitioners. J. Larry Broyles, for the respondent.

WITHEY

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

WITHEY, Judge: The respondent has determined*76 deficiencies in petitioners' income tax for the years and in the amounts as follows:

PetitionerDocket No.Year endedDeficiency
Louis A. Klitzner and Isabel S. Klitzner4768-62Feb. 29, 1960$5,911.09
Feb. 28, 19619,088.37
Harry F. Leshnower and Ruth S. Leshnower4769-62Dec. 31, 19593,157.30
Dec. 31, 19602,143.79

The cases were consolidated for trial and decision.

The sole issue presented for our decision is the correctness of the respondent's action in determining that certain payments made to petitioners during the years involved pursuant to a covenant not to compete constitute ordinary income.

Findings of Fact

The stipulated facts are found as stipulated.

Petitioners Louis A. Klitzner and Isabel S. Klitzner, residents of Memphis, Tennessee, filed their joint income tax returns for the fiscal years ended February 29, 1960, and February 28, 1961, with the director at Nashville, Tennessee.

Petitioners Harry F. Leshnower and Ruth S. Leshnower, likewise residents of Memphis, Tennessee, filed their joint income tax returns for 1959 and 1960 with the director at Nashville, Tennessee.

As hereinafter used, petitioners refers*77 to Louis A. Klitzner and Harry F. Leshnower.

On or about September 25, 1952, petitioners, together with Robert Breakstone, formed a partnership known as American Linen Service Company, sometimes hereinafter referred to as American or the partnership. Their respective interests in the partnership were: Klitzner, 45 percent; Breakstone, 45 percent; and Leshnower, 10 percent.

The partners, operating under the name of American Linen Service Company, conducted a linen rental service business furnishing uniforms and garments to various businesses in the Memphis, Tennessee, area. As a separate branch of its operations, American also engaged in an industrial rental laundry service under the name of Industrial Coverall Service Company which furnished industrial coveralls to manufacturers and service stations in the Memphis area.

In the latter part of 1952 and during 1953 and 1954, American employed approximately 100 employees in its entire operation. It owned its own laundry equipment, automotive equipment, linen, coveralls, and other garments. It was the practice of the partnership during those years to maintain customer lists which were utilized by its routemen in conducting a pickup*78 and delivery service.

On or about October 13, 1954, the partners executed an agreement under which Robert Breakstone was to withdraw from the partnership as of February 28, 1955. Under the terms of the agreement petitioners were to retain the linen rental service business and the firm name American Linen Service Company. The agreement also provided that the business of the Industrial Coverall Service was to be withdrawn from the partnership by Breakstone, together with certain insurance policies and real estate, in complete liquidation of his interest in the partnership. He was to operate the Industrial Coverall Service as his sole and separate enterprise.

Under the above-described agreement Klitzner and Leshnower agreed not to compete with Breakstone in the industrial laundry rental service for a period of 10 years. The reason for their covenant was described in the agreement as follows:

In recognition of the highly competitive nature of the businesses conducted by the partnership, of the standing which the respective parties have in the trade, and of the fact that Breakstone, on the one hand, and Klitzner and Leshnower, on the other hand would suffer considerable damage and*79 irreparable harm from competition with each other * * *

The covenant was not supported by any stated cash consideration.

On March 1, 1955, Breakstone executed a negative covenant agreement under which in consideration of the payment of $50,000, in equal monthly installments of $416.67, Breakstone agreed that he would not directly or indirectly compete with American in the linen rental business in the area served by that concern for a period of 10 years.

The full amount of the $5,000 annual payments made by Klitzner and Leshnower to Breakstone under the covenant, referred to last above, was deducted by American on its books as a business expense for each of its fiscal years ended February 29, 1956, through February 28, 1959.

On March 1, 1955, petitioners amended their partnership agreement to provide that Klitzner's partnership interest would be 65 percent and Leshnower's would be 35 percent.

Textile Maintenance, Inc., sometimes hereinafter referred to as Textile, was a Tennessee corporation formed on March 21, 1955. Klitzner owned 65 percent of its outstanding stock and Leshnower owned 35 percent thereof.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Michaels v. Commissioner
12 T.C. 17 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Horton v. Commissioner
13 T.C. 143 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Gazette Tel. Co. v. Commissioner
19 T.C. 692 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
Toledo Newspaper Co. v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 794 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
Ullman v. Commissioner
264 F.2d 305 (Second Circuit, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1964 T.C. Memo. 263, 23 T.C.M. 1601, 1964 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klitzner-v-commissioner-tax-1964.