4. Document the situation and authority separately before receiving the FAS 141R assessment or the IRS challenge. As with so many tax matters, documenting a tax officer`s position is very useful in supporting the desired tax treatment. Can the selling shareholder prove that, prior to receiving a FAS 141R review, he took into account the intent of the federal government (z.B. necessary for the transfer of the good incorporatif), the likelihood of an assessment of FAS 141R, which is an essential value of the federal government, and the reasons why the assessment does not correspond to the value of a competitive competition agreement. the probability of successfully defending the position is much higher. It is also important for the purchaser to assess non-competitive contractual values, as the IRS stated that, with a few exceptions, intangible assets must be depreciated over a 15-year period, more than double most tangible assets. In Schilbach, T.C. Memo.

In 1991-556, with respect to the transfer of good s or personal goodie, the court also considered the intent of the agreement. In this case, the insured lost his health insurance, was physically and mentally exhausted and intended to leave his practice and enter a new field of medical practice. When the sale of his business, the taxpayer signed a non-compete agreement; However, given the taxpayer`s intentions and his physical and mental state, it was clear that, even without Confederation, the taxpayer never intended and was not in a position to compete with the purchaser. Therefore, the federal government was not intended to compensate the seller for the collection of future income. The tax court therefore found that medical practice managed a goodwill equal to the value determined by the taxpayer at the time of liquidation. Selling your tightly managed business has its advantages. Whether you want to earn cash or shares and diversify your assets or simply simplify family relationships, selling your business can be beneficial. But such benefits are generally burdened by certain restrictive agreements in favour of the buyer, the main contract being a „non-competition agreement“. If the worker-holder is contracted by non-competition and continues to provide services to the company, the question arises as to whether the federal government is compensation for the abandonment of future income or simply a condition for future employment. As a general rule, the performance of the federal state to the extent that a worker is properly compensated for future benefits is not a compensatory event, but a condition of employment.

The recovery argued that „interest in a business or business“ meant a 100% interest in the property and that „this“ changed „interest in a business or business,“ so that 15-year depreciation would only apply to the acquisition of a „substantial part“ of a business or business. The IRS submitted that „it would change“ the „trade or activity,“ so that 15-year depreciation would apply to the acquisition of any interest in a business or business. The tax court sided with the IRS and found that the Confederation had to be depreciated over 15 years. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a non-competition contract must be depreciated over 15 years and not on its one-year term. A business buyer must define and attempt to quantify the „harm“ that the business seller and its principal employees could reasonably assign to his new business if there is no non-compete agreement in the purchase transaction to determine a competitive value. An experienced business evaluation consultant can be a scooter here. An analysis of well-thought-out, comparative and well-to-do net cash flows over the period of the non-compete agreement is essential to determine the fair value of a particular non-competition agreement.