Tolmach v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
62 T.C.M. 1102 (1991)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Milton Tolmach (plaintiff) was the oldest partner in the law firm of Hayt, Hayt, Tolmach & Landau. The partners met without Tolmach and voted to dissolve the firm, reforming as Hayt, Hayt & Landau. Tolmach brought an action for damages. Judgment was rendered in Tolmach’s favor. A referee valued the former partnership at $11,410,000, of which $8,750,000 represented goodwill. The referee further determined that Tolmach’s share of the total was $2,681,350. Landau and his partners appealed, but the parties reached a settlement, which ended the proceedings. The firm of Hayt, Hayt & Landau agreed to pay Tolmach $1.7 million in monthly guaranteed payments for his interest in the previous firm, plus a lump-sum payment of $155,000 for goodwill. Payments were made to Tolmach in 1983 and 1984 and reported by Tolmach as payments resulting from the sale of the previous firm, taxable as long-term capital gains. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the commissioner) (defendant) viewed the payments as guaranteed payments in liquidation of Tolmach’s interest in the previous firm, taxable as ordinary income. Tolmach challenged this assessment in the United States Tax Court. Tolmach also asserted that, in accordance with the referee’s determination in the earlier case, 77 percent of the payments to him should be considered goodwill, in which case capital-gain tax would apply to this 77 percent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Halpern, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.