Thomas E. Watts v. Commissioner of IRS ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 17-15282    Date Filed: 01/10/2019   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 17-15282
    ________________________
    D.C. No. CIR-1:018882-13
    THOMAS E. WATTS,
    MARY E. WATTS, et al.,
    Petitioners-Appellants,
    versus
    COMMISSIONER OF IRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the Tax Court of the United States
    ________________________
    (January 10, 2019)
    Before WILSON, BRANCH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 17-15282       Date Filed: 01/10/2019       Page: 2 of 3
    On appeal, both parties agree that the Tax Court erred in assuming that
    Wellspring made an election pursuant to Section 3.4(c) of the Partnership
    Agreement, which would result in Wellspring being entitled to receive preferred
    consideration based on the formula set forth in Section 10.9 of the Partnership
    Agreement that in turn referred to Section 11. Both parties agree that this was
    error because no such election was in fact made.
    Rather than address the remaining issues in the case, we prefer to remand to
    the Tax Court for it to rule on the remaining issues in the first instance. Without
    limiting the remaining issues for the Tax Court, we suggest it address whether the
    Danielson rule as adopted by this Circuit properly applies in this case, see Spector
    v. C.I.R., 
    641 F.2d 376
    (5th Cir. Unit A April 3, 1981),1 and its progeny; and
    whether the taxpayers proved that the Watts family and Wellspring actually had a
    separate, enforceable oral agreement that predated the purchase by Sun Capital
    and, if so, whether the Watts family’s incentive payments to Wellspring constituted
    amortizable capital expenditures.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the Tax Court is vacated, and the case is
    remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
    opinion.
    1
    In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 
    661 F.2d 1206
    , 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
    Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
    handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
    2
    Case: 17-15282   Date Filed: 01/10/2019   Page: 3 of 3
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-15282

Filed Date: 1/10/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/10/2019