Frontier Chevrolet Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A corporation redeemed 75% of its stock and entered a related non-compete agreement. The court held the redemption was an “indirect acquisition” under I.R.C. § 197, requiring the corporation to amortize the non-compete payments over 15 years, not the agreement’s shorter term.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a corporation’s stock redemption can constitute an “indirect acquisition of an interest in a trade or business” under I.R.C. § 197. This broad interpretation subjects related non-compete agreements to the mandatory 15-year amortization period, limiting faster deductions for taxpayers.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Frontier Chevrolet Company was owned 75% by Roundtree Automotive Group, Inc. and 25% by Dennis Menholt. In 1994, Frontier entered into a “Stock Sale Agreement” with Roundtree to redeem all of Roundtree’s 75% stock interest, making Menholt the sole shareholder. Frontier financed this redemption with a loan. In connection with the redemption, Frontier also entered into a “Non-Competition Agreement” with Roundtree and its principal. Under this agreement, Frontier agreed to pay Roundtree $22,000 per month for five years in exchange for Roundtree’s covenant not to compete in the local automobile dealership market. On its federal income tax returns, Frontier initially amortized the covenant payments over the 15-year period mandated by I.R.C. § 197. Later, Frontier filed for a refund, asserting that § 197 did not apply and that the payments should be amortized over the covenant’s five-year life, which would provide a more favorable, accelerated deduction. The Internal Revenue Service disagreed, and the parties stipulated that the sole issue was whether the covenant was subject to § 197 amortization.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a corporation’s redemption of a majority of its own stock constitute an “indirect acquisition of an interest in a trade or business” under I.R.C. § 197(d)(1)(E), thereby requiring an associated covenant not to compete to be amortized over 15 years?
Yes. A corporation’s redemption of 75% of its stock is an indirect Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a corporation’s redemption of a majority of its own stock constitute an “indirect acquisition of an interest in a trade or business” under I.R.C. § 197(d)(1)(E), thereby requiring an associated covenant not to compete to be amortized over 15 years?
Conclusion
This case establishes that a stock redemption is an "acquisition" for § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
Legal Rule
Under I.R.C. § 197(d)(1)(E), a covenant not to compete is a "section Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the tax court, rejecting Frontier's argument that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecte
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A corporation’s redemption of its own stock is an “indirect acquisition