AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
📋Key Facts
⚖️Legal Issues
📚Court Holding
💡Reasoning
🎯Significance
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
RETIEF GOOSEN, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
Docket No. 23323–09. Filed June 9, 2011.
P, a professional golfer, entered into endorsement agree-
ments with sponsors Acushnet, TaylorMade, Izod, Upper
Deck, Electronic Arts and Rolex. P agreed to allow all spon-
sors to use his name, face, image and likeness in advertising
and marketing campaigns worldwide. P also agreed to per-
form some services for the sponsors. All endorsement agree-
ments paid P a base endorsement fee. Acushnet, TaylorMade
and Izod prorated P’s base endorsement fee if he did not
annually play in a specified number of golf tournaments.
Moreover, Acushnet, TaylorMade and Izod provided bonuses
to P for achieving a specific finish in a PGA or European Tour
tournament or a specified ranking on the World Golf
Rankings. P characterized the endorsement fees and bonuses
from Acushnet, TaylorMade and Izod as 50 percent personal
services income and 50 percent royalty income on his non-
resident Federal income tax returns for 2002 and 2003. P
characterized the endorsement fees from Upper Deck, Elec-
tronic Arts and Rolex as 100 percent royalty income. P
reported approximately seven percent of the total endorse-
ment income as U.S.-source income. R determined that P
should have characterized the endorsement fees and bonuses
from Acushnet, TaylorMade and Izod as 100 percent personal
services income. R also reallocated a larger percentage of P’s
endorsement fees as U.S.-source income.
1. Held: The endorsement fees and bonuses P received from
Acushnet, TaylorMade and Izod are allocated 50 percent to
personal services income and 50 percent to royalty income.
2. Held, further, the royalty income P received from
Acushnet, TaylorMade and Izod is 50 percent U.S.-source
income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.
The royalty income P received from Rolex is 50 percent U.S.-
source income not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or
business. The royalty income P received from Upper Deck is
92 percent U.S.-source income not effectively connected with
a U.S. trade or business. The royalty income P received from
Electronic Arts is 70 percent U.S.-source income not effec-
tively connected with a U.S. trade or business.
3. Held, further, P does not benefit from any provision
under the 1975 or the 2001 U.S.-U.K. income tax treaty.
Aaron H. Bulloff, Stephen L. Kadish, and Matthew F.
Kadish, for petitioner.
Lindsey D. Stellwagen, Warren P. Simonsen, Nina E.
Chowdhry, and Jeffrey E. Gold, for respondent.
547
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00001 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
548 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
KROUPA, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner, a
non-domiciliary United Kingdom (U.K.) resident, had Federal
income tax deficiencies from income he received from world-
wide endorsement agreements for 2002 and 2003 (the years
at issue). 1 Respondent determined a $20,224 deficiency for
2002 and a $144,474 deficiency for 2003.
After concessions, there are three issues for decision. The
first issue is whether endorsement fees and bonuses peti-
tioner, a U.K. resident, received from worldwide endorsement
agreements with Acushnet Company (Acushnet), TaylorMade
Golf Company, Inc. (TaylorMade) and Izod Club, a division
of Oxford Industries, Inc. (Izod) should be characterized as
solely personal services income, solely royalty income or part
personal services income and part royalty income. We hold
that the income is part personal services income and part
royalty income. We next consider whether any income we
allocated as royalty income from the Acushnet, TaylorMade
and Izod endorsement agreements as well as the royalty
income petitioner received from worldwide endorsement
agreements with Upper Deck Company, LLC (Upper Deck),
Montres Rolex S.A. (Rolex) and Electronic Arts Inc. (Elec-
tronic Arts) is from sources within the United States. We
hold that a portion of the royalty income from all the
endorsement agreements is U.S.-source income. We finally
consider whether petitioner, a U.K. resident, may benefit
from provisions under the Convention for the Avoidance of
Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with
respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains, U.S.-U.K.,
Dec. 31, 1975, 31 U.S.T. 5668 (1975 U.S.-U.K. tax treaty), or
the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the
Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income
and on Capital Gains, U.S.-U.K., July 24, 2001, Tax Treaties
(CCH) par. 10,901 (2001 U.S.-U.K. tax treaty) (together, the
U.S.-U.K. tax treaties). 2 We find he does not.
1 Respondent also determined accuracy-related penalties in the deficiency notice but now con-
cedes that petitioner is not liable for such penalties. Only the deficiencies remain at issue.
2 The 1975 U.S.–U.K. tax treaty was in force Apr. 25, 1980, until Mar. 31, 2003, at which time
the 2001 U.S.–U.K. tax treaty came into force. The treaties are substantially similar and their
differences do not affect our decision.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00002 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 549
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
We incorporate the stipulation of facts and the accompanying
exhibits by this reference. Petitioner, a citizen of South
Africa, resided in the United Kingdom at the time he filed
the petition.
Petitioner is a professional golfer. He began his profes-
sional golf career on the South African Tour in 1988. He
earned ‘‘Rookie of the Year’’ in his first year on the South
African Tour, and he developed as one of the better golfers
in South Africa. Petitioner’s success in South Africa allowed
him to earn his tour card 3 on the European Tour in 1991.
Petitioner met his wife, a citizen of the United Kingdom,
shortly after joining the European Tour, and the two decided
to make London, England, their permanent residence.
Petitioner was required as a member of the European Tour
to play in a minimum of 11 European Tour tournaments
each year to maintain his tour card. Petitioner annually
exceeded that amount. He traveled to European Tour tour-
naments throughout Europe as well as Australia and the Far
East. Petitioner became one of the most successful and pop-
ular golfers on the European Tour. He ranked as the number
one golfer on the European Tour’s money list in 2001 by
earning the most prize money.
Petitioner’s Golf Career in the United States
Though popular on the European Tour, petitioner was
unknown in the United States leading up to the years at
issue. Petitioner rarely played in the United States, and he
did not have a U.S. Professional Golf Association Tour (PGA
Tour) card. He instead focused on maintaining his status and
high ranking on the European Tour. Petitioner’s career took
a dramatic upswing when he won the 2001 U.S. Open golf
tournament in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The U.S. Open is one of
four prestigious Major Championships in professional golf, 4
and professional golfers are largely remembered for how they
3 A professional golfer must obtain and maintain a tour card to play on a particular golf tour.
Each golf tour has its own requirements for obtaining and maintaining a tour card that often
include attending a tour school and participating in a certain number of tour tournaments each
year.
4 The other three Major Championships are the Masters, the British Open, and the PGA
Championship.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00003 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
550 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
perform in these tournaments. Petitioner’s profile sky-
rocketed both in the United States and globally after winning
the U.S. Open.
Petitioner automatically obtained his PGA Tour card when
he won the U.S. Open. He was required, as a member of the
PGA Tour, to play at least 13 PGA Tour tournaments a year.
Petitioner thereafter began to play in the United States more
regularly to maintain his PGA Tour card. Petitioner was able
to satisfy the tour card requirements of both the PGA and
European Tours because many tournaments in which he
played were classified as both PGA Tour tournaments and
European Tour tournaments. Petitioner played in approxi-
mately 36 tournaments a year during the years at issue,
spending most of his time in the United States and Europe.
IMG and Petitioner’s Financial Management
Petitioner hired IMG World, Inc. (IMG), an international
sports media entertainment group, to represent him and
manage his career and finances. IMG was started in the
1960s with a handshake between Attorney Mark McCormack
and golf legend Arnold Palmer. IMG revolutionized sports
marketing by promoting athletes for endorsement deals with
sponsors. Sponsors paid to have the athlete’s name, face,
image and likeness (name and likeness) associated with the
sponsor. IMG’s approach allowed clients to be concerned only
with playing their respective sports. IMG would take care of
the rest. IMG therefore expanded its role from simply pro-
moting its clients to managing all its clients’ business and
personal affairs.
IMG also included tax planning strategies as part of its
financial planning for its clients. IMG developed a strategy for
its clients that was intended to reduce their worldwide
income taxes if they were U.K. residents like petitioner. This
strategy was designed to keep certain income out of the
United Kingdom. To effectuate this plan, IMG directed its
U.K.-resident clients to enter into employment contracts with
two IMG-controlled entities, European Sports Promotions
Limited (ESP) and European Tournament Organizers Limited
(ETO). All income from the clients’ sports-related activities or
endorsements was directed to either an ESP (U.K. income) or
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00004 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 551
an ETO (non-U.K. income) bank account in Liechtenstein. 5
The clients’ endorsement earnings and prize winnings inside
the United Kingdom were contracted and paid to ESP (U.K.
income), and those outside the United Kingdom were con-
tracted and paid to ETO (non-U.K. income). Each entity would
issue the client a fixed annual salary and bonus. The client’s
bonus would not be paid until the entity subtracted expenses,
including the client’s salary, administrative fees and IMG
management fees.
Petitioner’s agent at IMG, Greg Kinnings (Mr. Kinnings),
determined that petitioner would be a prime candidate for
entering into employment agreements with ETO and ESP.
Petitioner agreed to be employed by ESP and ETO. Petitioner’s
golf-related earnings, including endorsement income, prize
money and appearance fees, were directed to ETO for the non-
U.K. income or ESP for the U.K. income. ETO (non-U.K.
income) transferred petitioner’s salary and bonus to his
Guernsey 6 bank account, and ESP (U.K. income) transferred
petitioner’s salary and bonus to his London bank account.
This structure ensured that petitioner’s U.K.-source income
would be repatriated to the United Kingdom and his non-
U.K.-source income would remain outside the United
Kingdom. The U.K. tax authorities approved this employ-
ment structure.
Marketing of Petitioner’s Name and Likeness
IMG also successfully marketed petitioner to sponsors
during the years at issue. Petitioner entered, either directly
or through ETO (non-U.K. income) or ESP (U.K. income), into
several endorsement agreements and appearance agreements
with sponsors. Endorsement agreements allow the sponsor to
use the athlete’s name and likeness to advertise and promote
the sponsor’s products for a specified period of time. Appear-
ance agreements allow the sponsor to use the athlete’s name
and likeness only in connection with the advertising and pro-
motion of a specific tournament or event. Sponsors value an
endorsement agreement based on the strength of an athlete’s
brand or image and the sponsor’s ability to be associated
with that brand or image. Sponsors consider the athlete’s rel-
5 Liechtenstein is known for its financial secrecy laws and was considered a tax haven during
the years at issue.
6 Guernsey has also been considered a tax haven.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00005 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
552 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
evance to a targeted market segment, the athlete’s perform-
ance in his sport and the athlete’s personality and appear-
ance. Moreover, sponsors generally look for athletes that
carry themselves in a professional and moral manner on and
off the playing field.
Petitioner’s accomplishments on the golf course made him
famous, though it was his image that made him marketable.
Golf is often called ‘‘the gentleman’s game,’’ and many spon-
sors see petitioner as one who epitomizes the gentleman
golfer. Petitioner has maintained a positive image through-
out his career. Sponsors appreciate his cool demeanor on the
course, his golf success, his recognition around the world and
his involvement in charities and other notable causes. He is
often branded as ‘‘the Goose’’ because of his name or ‘‘Ice-
man’’ because he is cool under pressure. 7
Petitioner’s name and likeness have been marketed in
South Africa and Europe since the 1990s. Sponsors began to
aggressively market petitioner in the United States and
increased his global marketing following his 2001 U.S. Open
victory. Petitioner entered into or renegotiated six endorse-
ment agreements during the years at issue. Petitioner
entered into endorsement agreements with TaylorMade, Izod,
Acushnet, Rolex, Upper Deck and Electronic Arts. These
sponsors had global reach and were consistent with peti-
tioner’s image and brand. The TaylorMade, Izod and
Acushnet endorsement agreements (collectively, the on-
course endorsement agreements) required petitioner to wear
or use their products during golf tournaments. In contrast,
the Rolex, Upper Deck and Electronic Arts endorsement
agreements (collectively, the off-course endorsement agree-
ments) did not have this requirement.
TaylorMade Endorsement Agreement
TaylorMade makes golf clubs and golf accessories,
including golf bags and golf club head covers. Petitioner has
used TaylorMade golf clubs his entire career because he con-
siders TaylorMade golf clubs the best in the world. ETO and
ESP each entered into a 4-year agreement with TaylorMade
(collectively, TaylorMade agreements) in 2002. ETO (non-U.K.
income) and ESP (U.K. income) licensed to TaylorMade
7 These nicknames were also associated with characters in the popular movie ‘‘Top Gun.’’
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00006 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 553
the right to use petitioner’s name and likeness on
TaylorMade golf apparel, equipment and accessories.
The TaylorMade agreements required petitioner to wear
TaylorMade clothing and headgear as well as to
use TaylorMade golf clubs, golf club head covers and golf
bags during tournaments and golf-related activities. Peti-
tioner also had to provide two service days to pose for tele-
vision commercials, for print advertising and for promotional
materials as well as six personal appearance days to promote
TaylorMade products at golf events. Petitioner further agreed
to test and examine TaylorMade golf products.
TaylorMade agreed to pay a $400,000 annual endorsement
fee. The TaylorMade agreements attributed $300,000 of the
$400,000 to ETO (non-U.K. income) and the remaining
$100,000 to ESP (U.K. income). Petitioner had to complete
two rounds of golf in a minimum of 20 PGA Tour tournaments
and 11 European Tour tournaments per year to secure the
TaylorMade endorsement fees. If he failed to play in the min-
imum number of tournaments, the endorsement fees were
prorated. Moreover, ETO and ESP would receive a bonus if
petitioner won a specified golf tournament (tournament
bonus) or achieved a specified ranking on the World Golf
Rankings (ranking bonus). The bonus payments were to be
allocated 25 percent to ESP (U.K. income) and 75 percent to
ETO (non-U.K. income). The TaylorMade agreements did not
explain the reason for this bonus allocation.
TaylorMade reserved the right to terminate the
TaylorMade agreements if petitioner committed any act that
materially reduced the value of the TaylorMade agreements
or violated public morality or decency (morals clause).
TaylorMade further reserved the right to terminate
the TaylorMade agreements if petitioner was convicted of
any criminal offense or found to have possessed drugs or
other illegal substances (illegal activities clause).
Izod Endorsement Agreement
Izod, an apparel company, sought petitioner to promote its
men’s golf apparel line. ETO and ESP each entered into a 3-
year endorsement agreement with Izod (collectively, the Izod
agreements) in 2001. ETO (non-U.K. income) and ESP (U.K.
income) licensed to Izod the right to use petitioner’s name
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00007 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
554 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
and likeness on Izod apparel and accessories. The Izod agree-
ments required petitioner to wear Izod products exclusively
when engaged in golf tournaments and other golf-related
activities and to provide two international appearance days
of up to six hours each on behalf of Izod.
Izod agreed to pay ETO (non-U.K. income) a $33,750
endorsement fee for 2002 and $37,500 endorsement fee for
2003. Izod agreed to pay ESP (U.K. income) an $11,250
endorsement fee for 2002 and a $12,500 endorsement fee for
2003. The endorsement fees would be prorated based on tour-
naments played if petitioner failed to compete in 18 PGA or
European Tour tournaments per year. ETO (non-U.K. income)
and ESP (U.K. income) were eligible to receive tournament
bonuses and ranking bonuses under the Izod agreements.
The total bonus payments were allocated 25 percent to ESP
(U.K. income) and 75 percent to ETO (non-U.K. income). The
Izod agreements did not explain the reason for this bonus
allocation. The Izod agreements also contained a morals
clause and an illegal activities clause.
Acushnet Endorsement Agreement
Acushnet manufactures various sports merchandise,
including Titleist brand golf balls and golf gloves. Petitioner
has used Acushnet products for most of his golfing career.
Petitioner directly entered into a 2-year endorsement agree-
ment with Acushnet (Acushnet agreement) following his win
at the 2001 U.S. Open. Petitioner licensed to Acushnet the
right to use his name and likeness in connection with its
advertisement, promotion and sale of Titleist golf balls and
golf gloves. Petitioner also agreed to play with Titleist golf
balls and golf gloves in all golf tournaments, exhibitions,
clinics and other events worldwide. Petitioner agreed to
participate in four days of public relations activities as well
as television commercials for advertising and promoting
Acushnet products. The Acushnet agreement also required
petitioner to develop and test Acushnet golf products.
Acushnet agreed to pay petitioner a $350,000 endorsement
fee for 2002 and a $375,000 endorsement fee for 2003, plus
tournament bonuses and rankings bonuses. The endorsement
fee would be prorated if petitioner failed to compete in 20
PGA or European Tour tournaments per year. Petitioner
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00008 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 555
thereafter authorized ESP and ETO to invoice and collect all
monies due under the Acushnet agreement for all U.K. and
non-U.K. activities. Petitioner directed that 25 percent of the
endorsement fees and bonuses from Acushnet be allocated to
ESP (U.K. income) and 75 percent be allocated to ETO (non-
U.K. income).
Rolex Endorsement Agreement
Rolex is a Swiss manufacturer of luxury timepieces. Peti-
tioner directly entered into a 3-year endorsement agreement
with Rolex in 2001 (Rolex agreement). Petitioner licensed to
Rolex the right to use his name and likeness in any medium
in connection with the advertisement, promotion and sale of
Rolex timepieces worldwide. The Rolex agreement did not
require petitioner to take part in any golfing activities. It did
require, however, petitioner to use all reasonable efforts to
wear a Rolex timepiece when featured in any medium or
when appearing in public engagements worldwide. He also
agreed to be reasonably available for interviews, photographs
or films relating to Rolex’s products.
Rolex agreed to pay a $50,000 annual endorsement fee to
petitioner. Petitioner thereafter authorized ESP and ETO to
invoice and collect all monies due under the Rolex agree-
ment. Petitioner asked that 25 percent of the endorsement
fees from Rolex be allocated to ESP (U.K. income) and 75 per-
cent be allocated to ETO (non-U.K. income).
Upper Deck Endorsement Agreement
Upper Deck is an international sports and entertainment
products company that produces golf trading cards. Peti-
tioner entered into a 14-month letter agreement with Upper
Deck in 2001 (Upper Deck agreement). Petitioner licensed to
Upper Deck the right to use his name and likeness world-
wide in connection with the production, marketing, adver-
tising, promotion and sale of Upper Deck’s golf trading cards.
Petitioner agreed to sign 3,500 trading cards per year as well
as provide five shirts, five pairs of gloves, two hats and one
golf bag, each of which he used during practice or in a golf
tournament.
Upper Deck agreed to pay petitioner a $42,500 endorse-
ment fee. Half of the endorsement fee was paid within 30
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00009 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
556 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
days of executing the agreement, and the remaining 50 per-
cent was paid 30 days after petitioner performed all required
services under the agreement. He authorized ESP and ETO to
invoice and collect all monies due under the Upper Deck
agreement. The Upper Deck agreement contained a morals
clause and an illegal activities clause.
Electronic Arts Endorsement Agreement
Electronic Arts develops, markets and distributes video
games, including Tiger Woods PGA Tour, a series of golf video
games. ETO and ESP each entered into a 3-year endorsement
agreement with Electronic Arts in 2003 (collectively, the
Electronic Arts agreements). ETO (non-U.K. income) and ESP
(U.K. income) licensed to Electronic Arts the right to use
petitioner’s name and likeness in its software products,
including Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 (the video game). The
territory of ETO’s license to Electronic Arts (ETO-Electronic
Arts agreement) was worldwide, except for the United
Kingdom. The territory of ESP’s license to Electronic Arts
(ESP-Electronic Arts agreement) was the United Kingdom.
The ETO Electronic Arts agreement required petitioner to
provide two 4-hour product development sessions and to pro-
vide nine photographs to enable Electronic Arts to recreate
petitioner’s likeness. The ESP-Electronic Arts agreement did
not contain any service requirement.
Electronic Arts agreed to pay ETO $22,500 upon signing the
ETO-Electronic Arts agreement and $11,250 on or before
January 1, 2004. Electronic Arts agreed to pay ESP (U.K.
income) $7,500 upon signing the ESP-Electronic Arts agree-
ment and $3,750 on or before January 1, 2004.
U.S. Income Taxes and Returns
MAI Wealth Advisors (MAI) prepared and filed for petitioner
nonresident alien Federal income tax returns for the years at
issue. MAI is owned by principals of IMG. MAI manages the
financial affairs of athletes and other high-net-worth individ-
uals. MAI treated petitioner as having received the endorse-
ment income directly from the sponsors, rather than from
ETO or ESP.
Petitioner reported all prize money from golf tournaments
and appearance fees in the United States as effectively con-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00010 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 557
nected income taxable in the United States. Petitioner
characterized his endorsement fees and bonuses from the on-
course endorsements as 50 percent royalty income and 50
percent personal services income. Petitioner reported his on-
course endorsement fees and tournament bonuses as 3.4 per-
cent U.S.-source royalty income. He sourced the personal
services income from the on-course endorsement fees and
tournament bonuses to the United States based on the
number of days he played inside the United States over
the total days he played golf for the year. Petitioner sourced
the personal services income portion of his ranking bonuses
from the on-course endorsement agreements based on a ratio
of his U.S. prize winnings to his worldwide prize winnings.
Petitioner characterized his endorsement fees from the off-
course endorsement agreements as 100 percent royalty
income. Petitioner reported 6.8 percent of endorsement fees
from Rolex and Electronic Arts as U.S.-source royalty income
and 9.1 percent of the payments from Upper Deck as U.S.-
source royalty income. 8
Respondent audited petitioner’s returns and mailed him
the deficiency notice. Respondent allocated the endorsement
fees generated from the on-course endorsement agreements
based on the number of U.S. tournaments petitioner played
in comparison to the number of worldwide tournaments he
played. Respondent allocated all tournament bonuses from
tournaments played in the United States to the United
States. Respondent allocated the ranking bonuses based on
the ratio of U.S. prize money to worldwide prize winnings.
Respondent agreed that petitioner’s income from the off-
course endorsement agreements was royalty income.
Respondent determined, however, that 25 percent of the roy-
alty income should be U.S.-source income rather than the
less than 10 percent U.S.-source income petitioner reported.
Respondent determined based on these adjustments that
petitioner underreported taxable income for the years at
issue.
Petitioner timely filed a petition challenging respondent’s
determinations. The parties have been able to resolve some
8 Petitioner contends he calculated his royalty income percentages using a 12-market model,
which allocated 25 percent of the endorsement fees to the United Kingdom and 75 percent of
the endorsement fees evenly among 11 other world markets. He has provided few details of the
11 other world markets or how this calculation works.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00011 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
558 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
issues but they still dispute the deficiency amounts as they
relate to the on-course and off-course endorsement agree-
ments. The parties stipulated that any income from the on-
course endorsement agreements characterized as personal
services income should be sourced 41.7241 percent to the
United States for 2002 and 42.7397 percent to the United
States for 2003. The parties also stipulated that all tour-
nament bonus income is U.S.-source and all ranking bonus
income is U.S.-source based on the ratio of U.S. prize
winnings to worldwide prize winnings.
OPINION
We are asked to decide how petitioner, a U.K. resident,
should characterize and source the income he received under
the worldwide endorsement agreements for U.S. tax pur-
poses. Petitioner contends that the sponsors paid the
endorsement income primarily for the right to use his name
and likeness, not for any services he may have provided. He
argues that the endorsement income should therefore be
taxed as U.S.-source royalty income. Respondent counters
that the sponsors paid him the endorsement income pri-
marily for personal services and therefore such income
should be taxed as U.S.-source personal services income. The
parties also dispute whether petitioner is eligible for any
benefits under the U.S.-U.K. tax treaties. We begin by exam-
ining the burden of proof.
I. Burden of Proof
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations in the defi-
ciency notice are presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the
burden of proving that the Commissioner’s determinations
are in error. See Rule 142(a); 9 Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933). The burden of proof may shift to the
Commissioner in certain situations. Sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and
(B). Petitioner does not argue nor do we find that the burden
of proof has shifted to respondent.
9 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue,
and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise
indicated.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00012 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 559
II. Taxation of Nonresident Aliens Under the Code
We now consider how petitioner’s endorsement income
should be taxed in the United States. The United States gen-
erally taxes nonresident aliens only if they engage in a U.S.
trade or business or receive U.S.-source fixed and deter-
minable annual or periodic income. See sec. 864(b). Engaging
in a U.S. trade or business includes any business activity in
the United States that involves one’s own physical presence.
See sec. 1.864–2, Income Tax Regs. The parties agree that
petitioner’s golf play in the United States amounts to his
engaging in a U.S. trade or business. We must therefore
determine the character and source of the income and
whether such income was effectively connected with his golf
play in the United States. We will consider each issue in
turn. We begin by considering the character of the income.
A. Character of Income—Personal Services Income or
Royalties
We first decide whether the endorsement income con-
stitutes personal services income or royalty income. The par-
ties agree that the endorsement fees under the off-course
endorsement agreements constitute royalty income. We will
therefore examine endorsement income only from the on-
course endorsement agreements, which include the
TaylorMade, Izod and Acushnet agreements.
Petitioner asserts that the sponsors paid him for the right
to co-market and co-brand their products with petitioner’s
name and likeness. Courts have repeatedly characterized
payments for the right to use a person’s name and likeness
as royalties because the person has an ownership interest in
the right. See Cepeda v. Swift & Co., 415 F.2d 1205 (8th Cir.
1969); Haelan Lab., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202
F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953); cf. Boulez v. Commissioner, 83 T.C.
584 (1984) (intellectual property creator receives only per-
sonal services income if the creator lacks an ownership
interest in the underlying property); Kramer v. Commis-
sioner, 80 T.C. 768 (1983); Uhlaender v. Hendricksen, 316 F.
Supp. 1277 (D. Minn. 1970). Petitioner submitted an expert
report from Jim Baugh (Mr. Baugh), former president of Wil-
son Sporting Goods, to support his contention that
TaylorMade, Izod and Acushnet paid for his name and like-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00013 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
560 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
ness rather than for the performance of services. Mr. Baugh
has spent more than 35 years in sports marketing and has
extensive experience in professional athlete endorsement
agreements.
Respondent argues that the sponsors primarily paid peti-
tioner to perform personal services. Respondent argues that
the personal services petitioner was required to perform
included playing golf and carrying or wearing the sponsors’
products. Respondent relies on this personal services argu-
ment by focusing on the proration of the endorsement fees if
petitioner failed to play in a specific number of golf tour-
naments. Respondent claims that any income received for the
use of petitioner’s name and likeness should be considered de
minimis.
The characterization of petitioner’s on-course endorsement
fees and bonuses depends on whether the sponsors primarily
paid for petitioner’s services, for the use of petitioner’s name
and likeness, or for both. See Or. State Univ. Alumni
Association v. Commissioner, 193 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 1999),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1996–34; Boulez v. Commissioner, supra;
Kramer v. Commissioner, supra. We must divine the intent
of the sponsors and of petitioner from the entire record,
including the terms of the specific endorsement agreement.
See Ark. State Police Association, Inc. v. Commissioner, 282
F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 2002).
The on-course endorsement agreements granted sponsors
TaylorMade, Izod and Acushnet the right to use petitioner’s
name and likeness for advertising and promotional materials
worldwide. Petitioner also agreed to wear or use the spon-
sors’ products, make promotional appearances and partici-
pate in photo and filming days. The sponsors paid petitioner
a base endorsement fee, though the fee would be prorated if
he did not play in a specified number of tournaments. The
sponsors also paid petitioner tournament and ranking
bonuses based on his on-course performance. The endorse-
ment agreements fail to allocate the endorsement income
between services petitioner was to provide and the amount
paid for the right to use petitioner’s name and likeness. As
we view the record as a whole, we find that the sponsors paid
for both the services provided and the right to use peti-
tioner’s name and likeness.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00014 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 561
The record shows that petitioner’s name and his associated
international reputation had a value beyond his golf skills
and abilities. See Kramer v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner
spent many years developing his image. He started in South
Africa, and then he flourished in the European Tour. He was
one of the top professional golfers and was recognizable
worldwide.
Charles Prestagacio (Mr. Prestagacio), Senior Vice Presi-
dent of Global Sports Marketing for TaylorMade, testified
that TaylorMade paid petitioner to appear at tournaments as
well as to use his name and likeness in connection with its
products. He stated that TaylorMade viewed petitioner not
only as a golfer, but as a brand ambassador. TaylorMade val-
ued its endorsement agreement with petitioner because it
appreciated petitioner’s image. TaylorMade wanted to be
associated with his cool and professional persona. Mr.
Prestagacio stated that TaylorMade marketed petitioner’s
image globally, year round. TaylorMade, as well as the other
on-course endorsement sponsors, co-branded their products
with petitioner in magazine and newspaper advertisements,
promotional materials and television commercials distributed
all over the world. TaylorMade was paying for petitioner’s
image. He was not paid per advertisement or news clipping.
Moreover, he played in golf tournaments all over the world
to ensure he complied with his tour card requirements, not
to earn endorsement fees per se.
Acushnet and Izod even included a morals clause and an
illegal activities clause in their respective endorsement
agreements to terminate the agreements if petitioner com-
promised his image. Mr. Baugh cited the rise and fall of
Tiger Woods (Mr. Woods) as an endorser to illustrate the
importance sponsors place on an athlete’s image. Mr. Woods
built the most powerful, valuable and carefully orchestrated
brand and image in sports. He lost most of his sponsorships,
however, when his extra-marital affairs made front page
news. Sponsors determined that Mr. Woods’ image was no
longer compatible with their products.
Mr. Baugh’s report also stated that an athlete’s image is
often more important than an athlete’s performance on the
course. Mr. Baugh highlighted the contrast between
TaylorMade’s on-course endorsements with petitioner and
those with Sergio Garcia (Mr. Garcia). Petitioner ranked
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00015 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
562 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
either near or higher than Mr. Garcia on the PGA Tour and
World Golf Rankings during the years at issue. Petitioner
had won a Major Championship as well as several high-pro-
file tournaments on the European Tour. In contrast, Mr.
Garcia had failed to win a Major Championship and had few
significant wins. Despite this difference in golf performance,
both petitioner and Mr. Garcia entered into substantially
similar endorsement agreements with TaylorMade. In addi-
tion, Mr. Garcia was paid substantially more than petitioner
despite his lesser record. TaylorMade valued Mr. Garcia’s
flash, looks and maverick personality more than petitioner’s
cool, ‘‘Iceman’’ demeanor. We find that TaylorMade, Izod and
Acushnet valued petitioner’s image, and they paid substan-
tial money for the right to use his name and likeness.
The record also shows that the sponsors valued petitioner’s
play at tournaments. Petitioner agreed to make promotional
appearances at tournaments and to wear or use the sponsors’
products. Moreover, the sponsors conditioned the full
endorsement fee on petitioner’s playing in a specified number
of tournaments. Otherwise, the sponsors would prorate his
endorsement fees. The sponsors could use petitioner’s image
in all of their advertising campaigns worldwide, but the
sponsors would pay petitioner only if he played golf. His
tournament bonuses were based solely on how he performed
in specific tournaments. If he performed well throughout the
year, he could receive a ranking bonus. We find that the
performance of services requirement was not de minimis or
ancillary to the use of his name and likeness. Accordingly, we
find that the income received from the on-course endorse-
ment agreements was part royalty income and part personal
services income.
We find it appropriate to allocate the endorsement fees
from the on-course endorsements between personal services
income and royalty income. While we recognize that precision
in making such an allocation is unattainable, we must do the
best we can with the evidence presented. Kramer v. Commis-
sioner, supra; see DeMink v. United States, 448 F.2d 867, 870
(9th Cir. 1971); Commissioner v. Ferrer, 304 F.2d 125, 135
(2d Cir. 1962), revg. 35 T.C. 617 (1961); Ditmars v. Commis-
sioner, 302 F.2d 481, 488 (2d Cir. 1962), revg. T.C. Memo.
1961–105. We must examine all the surrounding facts and
circumstances. Kramer v. Commissioner, supra. The sponsors
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00016 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 563
paid for the right to use petitioner’s name and likeness and
to be associated with his image. Petitioner’s endorsement
income depended, however, on his playing in tournaments.
The record shows that the performance of services and the
use of name and likeness were equally important. We find
that 50 percent of the endorsement fees petitioner received
represented royalty income and 50 percent represented per-
sonal services income.
B. Sourcing and Effectively Connected Income
We must next determine what portion of the endorsement
income should be sourced to the United States. We accept the
parties’ stipulations for sourcing the personal services
income, tournament bonuses and ranking bonuses to the
United States. The parties disagree as to what portion of the
royalty income from the on-course and off-course endorse-
ment fees should be U.S.-source income. We first consider
what portion of the royalty income is U.S.-source income. We
then consider whether any U.S.-source royalty income was
effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business.
1. Sourcing Petitioner’s Royalties
Royalty income paid for the right to use intangible prop-
erty generally is sourced where the property is used or is
granted the privilege of being used. Secs. 861(a)(4), 862(a)(4).
For example, royalty income received for the use of trade-
marks in making foreign sales is sourced outside the United
States. Rev. Rul. 68–443, 1968–2 C.B. 304. Thus, we must
consider where petitioner’s name and likeness were used or
would be used to determine the source of petitioner’s royalty
income.
Taxpayers must make an appropriate sourcing allocation if
the royalty income relates to the right to use property both
within and outside the United States. The contracting parties
to the transaction have the burden of making a reasonable
allocation of the royalty income between the U.S. and foreign
sources. Here, petitioner granted his sponsors the right to
use his name and likeness worldwide. The contracting par-
ties agreed to source 25 percent to the United Kingdom and
75 percent to the rest of the world. The contracting parties
did not specify, however, how the income should be sourced
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00017 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
564 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
to the United States. We therefore cannot accept their
sourcing allocation for purposes of determining U.S.-source
royalty income.
Courts have generally allocated all the royalty income to
the United States if the contracting parties failed to make a
reasonable allocation, unless the taxpayer can show there is
a sufficient basis for allocating the income between U.S. and
foreign sources. See Misbourne Pictures Ltd. v. Johnson, 189
F.2d 774, 775 (2d Cir. 1951); Molnar v. Commissioner, 156
F.2d 924 (2d Cir. 1946), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this
Court; Rohmer v. Commissioner, 153 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir.
1946), affg. 5 T.C. 183 (1945). A sufficient basis exists when
a taxpayer establishes that he or she has property rights out-
side the United States and furnishes evidence on the value
of those rights. See Wodehouse v. Commissioner, 178 F.2d
987 (4th Cir. 1949), affg. in part and revg. in part 8 T.C. 637
(1947).
Petitioner has established that he owns the rights to his
name and likeness outside the United States and that those
rights have value. We must therefore determine the value of
those rights by examining where the sponsors actually used
petitioner’s name and likeness. Petitioner’s name and like-
ness were used in magazine and newspaper advertisements,
commercials, websites and other promotional materials. The
parties have presented little statistical evidence on the use
of petitioner’s name and likeness. This does not absolve us,
however, from valuing rights merely because there is dif-
ficulty in fixing their value. Id. We therefore consider the evi-
dence to make the reasonable sourcing allocation.
a. Upper Deck and Electronic Arts Endorsement Fees
We first consider sourcing petitioner’s royalty income from
Upper Deck and Electronic Arts. The record reflects that
Upper Deck sold 92 percent of its golf cards in the United
States and eight percent outside the United States. The
record reflects that Electronic Arts sold 70 percent of the
video games in the United States and 30 percent of the video
games outside the United States. The parties do not dispute
these sales figures.
We recognize that product sales do not necessarily reflect
the relative worldwide value of the intangible rights. See
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00018 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 565
Molnar v. Commissioner, supra; Rohmer v. Commissioner,
supra. Here, however, the golf card and video game sales
appear to indicate where Upper Deck and Electronic Arts
used petitioner’s name and likeness. Petitioner added value
to both Upper Deck’s and Electronic Arts’ international sales
because he was a citizen of South Africa, resided in England
and played worldwide. The record shows, however, that the
golf cards and the video game were primarily marketed in
the United States. Petitioner’s name and likeness also were
valued greatly in the United States following his 2001 U.S.
Open win.
Moreover, petitioner’s name and likeness value was inex-
tricably tied to the sales of the video game and golf cards.
Petitioner’s endorsement agreement granted Electronic Arts
the right to use petitioner’s name and likeness only with the
video game, and not in advertising or other promotional
materials. The parties agree that Upper Deck’s golf card
sales, rather than its use of petitioner’s name and likeness
in advertising and promotional material, should be a deter-
mining factor in sourcing the Upper Deck endorsement fees.
We agree.
We find that the sale of the trading cards and video game
provide a sufficient basis for determining where Upper Deck
and Electronic Arts used petitioner’s name and likeness
rights. We therefore find that petitioner’s royalty income
from Upper Deck is 92 percent U.S.-source income and Elec-
tronic Arts is 70 percent U.S.-source income.
b. On-Course and Rolex Endorsement Fees
We next consider whether the parties presented sufficient
evidence to value petitioner’s royalty income under the on-
course and Rolex endorsement agreements. Petitioner, Mr.
Kinnings and Mr. Prestagacio all testified that petitioner was
marketed aggressively in the United States following his
2001 U.S. Open victory. Petitioner testified that the United
Kingdom, United States and South Africa were his three
largest markets for golf endorsements. We find perplexing,
however, that he allocated 25 percent of his royalty income
to the United Kingdom and only 6.4 percent of his royalty
income to the United States. On the evidence presented, we
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00019 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
566 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
cannot accept petitioner’s contention that less than seven
percent of his royalty income is U.S.-source income.
We look to the rest of the facts. Petitioner has shown that
the sponsors paid for the right to use petitioner’s name and
likeness outside the United States. Petitioner has dem-
onstrated that he had a global image and that he was mar-
keted all over the world. His market includes the United
Kingdom, the United States, South Africa, Australia and the
Far East. Thus, it would be unreasonable to source all the
royalties to the United States. Petitioner testified that the
United States is the largest golf market in the world, and it
is one of his largest markets for golf endorsements. Taking
into account all the evidence, it is our best judgment and we
so find that 50 percent of the royalty income petitioner
received from the on-course and Rolex endorsement agree-
ments is U.S.-source income.
2. Effectively Connected Income
We next consider whether such U.S.-source income is effec-
tively connected with a U.S. trade or business. The parties
agree that petitioner engaged in the U.S. trade or business
of playing golf. A nonresident alien engaged in a U.S. trade
or business is taxed on income that is effectively connected
with the conduct of that trade or business. Sec. 882(a)(1). We
apply different rules depending on whether the income is
U.S.-source income or not U.S.-source income. In the case of
U.S.-source income that is effectively connected with a U.S.
trade or business, a nonresident alien will be subject to the
graduated tax rates applicable to U.S. residents. In the case
of U.S.-source income that is not effectively connected with
a U.S. trade or business and consists of rents, dividends,
royalties or other fixed or determinable annual or periodic
income, the nonresident alien will be subject to a flat 30-per-
cent withholding tax. The parties do not argue, nor do we
find, that petitioner maintained an office or fixed place of
business in the United States. We therefore find that peti-
tioner is not subject to U.S. tax on his income that is not
from U.S. sources.
The parties also do not dispute that petitioner’s personal
services were effectively connected with petitioner’s golf play
and that the U.S.-source income earned playing golf is taxed
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00020 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 567
at regular graduated rates. We must still determine whether
petitioner’s U.S.-source royalty income is effectively con-
nected with his U.S. trade or business. U.S.-source royalty
income will be effectively connected with a U.S. trade or
business if the activities of the trade or business are a mate-
rial factor in realizing the royalty income. Sec. 1.864–
4(c)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs. 10 We will consider separately the
U.S.-source royalty income petitioner received under the on-
course endorsement agreements and that under the off-
course endorsement agreements.
We first consider whether petitioner’s U.S.-source royalty
income from the on-course endorsement agreements was
effectively connected with his golf play in the United States.
As we previously discussed, petitioner’s income from the use
of his name and likeness depended on whether he played in
a specified number of golf tournaments. In other words, peti-
tioner’s participation in a golf tournament was material to
receiving income for the use of his name and likeness. We
therefore find that such income is effectively connected with
a U.S. trade or business, and petitioner will be subject to the
graduated tax rates applicable to U.S. residents.
We next consider whether petitioner’s U.S.-source royalty
income from the off-course endorsement agreements was
effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. The
income petitioner received from the off-course endorsement
agreements did not depend on whether he played in any golf
tournaments. He would be paid regardless of whether he
played in or won any tournament. Moreover, the off-course
endorsement agreements did not require petitioner to be
physically present in the United States. We therefore find
that the income petitioner received from off-course endorse-
ment agreements was not effectively connected with a U.S.
trade or business. See sec. 1.864–4(c)(3)(ii), Example (2),
Income Tax Regs. Accordingly, a flat 30-percent tax is
imposed on petitioner’s gross U.S.-source royalty income from
the off-course endorsement agreements. See secs. 881(a),
871(a)(1).
10 There is also an asset test in sec. 864(c)(2), not relevant here. Sec. 1.864–4(c)(2)(i), (3)(i),
Income Tax Regs.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00021 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
568 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (547)
III. Effect of U.S.–U.K. Tax Treaties
We finally consider whether petitioner benefits from the
U.S.–U.K. tax treaties. The fundamental purpose of a tax
treaty is to avoid the uncoordinated taxation of an individ-
ual’s income by two different countries. Tax treaties seek to
avoid double taxation as well as prevent fiscal evasion. The
Code applies with due regard to any applicable treaty obliga-
tion of the United States. Sec. 894(a)(1). We therefore con-
sider whether petitioner would receive any benefits under
the U.S.-U.K. tax treaties that he did not receive under the
Code.
The U.S.-U.K. tax treaties provide that the United
Kingdom will tax a U.K. resident non-domiciliary on non-
U.K. source income only to the extent the income is remitted
to or received in the United Kingdom. See 1975 U.S.-U.K. tax
treaty art. IV(5); 2001 U.S.-U.K. tax treaty art. I(7). In such
a case, the United States may not subject the U.K. resident
to tax on specified kinds of income to avoid double taxation.
Petitioner may therefore benefit from the U.S.-U.K. tax trea-
ties regarding payments made to ESP (U.K. income) and ETO
(non-U.K. income) that were remitted to or received in the
United Kingdom. The parties agree that the endorsement
income ETO (non-U.K. income) received was not remitted to
or received in the United Kingdom. Petitioner argues, how-
ever, that he should benefit from the U.S.-U.K. tax treaties
to the extent ESP (U.K. income) remitted his salary and
bonuses to his U.K. bank account.
We now consider whether petitioner’s endorsement income
was remitted to or received in the United Kingdom. Peti-
tioner’s sponsors wired their payments to ESP’s (U.K. income)
bank account in Liechtenstein. In addition to his endorse-
ment income, ESP (U.K. income) received on petitioner’s
behalf significant amounts of prize money, bonuses, non-U.S.
royalties and appearance fees. ESP (U.K. income) paid peti-
tioner a salary and a bonus that were based on the total
amount deposited into the ESP (U.K. income) bank account in
Liechtenstein. Petitioner submitted statements from his U.K.
bank account showing transfers from ESP (U.K. income) into
his U.K. bank account of £495,206 in 2002 and £12,500 in
2003. Petitioner has not established, however, whether these
salary and bonus payments constitute endorsement income
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00022 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA
(547) GOOSEN v. COMMISSIONER 569
or another type of income. We find no evidence in the record
that any or all of the income received into the account was
endorsement income paid by TaylorMade, Izod, Acushnet,
Upper Deck, Electronic Arts or Rolex.
Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that
endorsement income ESP (U.K. income) received on his behalf
has been remitted to or received in the United Kingdom. As
such, petitioner is not eligible for benefits under the U.S.-
U.K. tax treaties.
IV. Conclusion
In sum, we find that petitioner received 50 percent royal-
ties and 50 percent personal services income under the on-
course endorsements. We also find that 50 percent of the roy-
alty income petitioner received under the on-course endorse-
ment agreements and the Rolex agreement is U.S.-source
income, 92 percent of the royalty income petitioner received
under the Upper Deck endorsement agreement is U.S.-source
income and 70 percent of the royalty income received under
the Electronic Arts agreement is U.S.-source income. Peti-
tioner has not shown that he is eligible for any treaty bene-
fits.
We have considered all arguments made in reaching our
decision, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that
they are moot, irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
f
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:08 May 31, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00023 Fmt 3851 Sfmt 3851 V:\FILES\GOOSEN.136 SHEILA