Skip to Main Content

Tax Notes Quotes Mark Allison on Professional Golfer's Endorsement Income Allocation

April 8, 2013, Tax Notes

Mark D. Allison is quoted in Tax Notes regarding a recent Tax Court case involving professional golfer Sergio Garcia and how the court resolved the allocation of income issues involing royalties.  For more on the story, please go to Tax Notes's website.
Excerpt taken from the article "Golfers Help Resolve Endorsement Income Allocations" by Marie Sapirie for Tax Notes.  Reprinted with the permission of Tax Notes.

 Wearing logo-emblazoned clothes, using branded equipment, making appearances at promotional events, and lending one's image to print and video advertisements are practices that have not changed much since 1983. Determining the correct allocation in an endorsement agreement is certainly a fact-intensive inquiry that may continue to be litigated even after the analytical rubric has been established, but the court's footnote may have inadvertently left a larger than necessary opening for taxpayers to argue that the analysis in Garcia and Goosen does not apply to them.

The Garcia footnote is also odd because all three opinions were designated as Tax Court opinions, rather than memorandum opinions. The Tax Court opinion designation suggests the court saw an important legal issue or principle in the case, in contrast to the memorandum opinion designation, which is for cases in which the law is settled or factually driven. Mark Allison of Caplin & Drysdale said, "There is nothing particularly unusual about [ Garcia ] insofar as it is a valuation case." He suggested that the court might have made the designation to acknowledge that valuing name and reputation is difficult, as is differentiating that from pure compensation for services.

In Goosen, the IRS agreed that off-course endorsement income is royalty income. But Garcia does not bisect the contract into on-course and off-course components. It is not clear why the court did not go down that path given the direction from Goosen, said Allison. Off-course endorsement income should be nearly exclusively royalty income because the sponsor is seeking the benefits of the player's name and reputation, but for on-course endorsements such as wearing a logo on a shirt or playing with branded clubs, there is "at least a question to be resolved whether the player is providing something more akin to personal services because you have to be wearing [the clothes] and playing in tournament to get the fee," he said. Endorsement contracts should be capable of being broken down into on-course and off-course components, including success or incentive bonuses. If Garcia wins a major wearing the logo, he would typically get a bonus, and the inclination is to view that fee as compensation for services even though the sponsor typically gets a substantial boost because the enhancement of the player's reputation as a result of the win, but these nuances were not addressed in the opinion, said Allison.

Goosen and Garcia have broad implications in terms of how to think about valuing an individual's name, said Allison. Although the number of athletes who may have contracts like those at issue is small, both opinions highlight the attributes involved in valuing an athlete's identity, he said. Athletes should reevaluate their endorsement agreements and possibly get an appraisal that includes an allocation between on- and off-course income and that explains more clearly where the value of the contract lies, Allison said.



About Caplin & Drysdale
Celebrating our 55th Anniversary in 2019, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills -- combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment -- make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:
For more information, please visit us at
Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
New York, NY Office:
600 Lexington Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022


This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.
©2021 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.