Wager v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Certain sums received by petitioner Henry P. Wager in connection with the sale of a patent and stock were compensation for a covenant not to compete and availability for consulting services as provided in the pertinent agreements and were therefore ordinary income either under the "mistake, undue influence, fraud, duress, etc." rule of Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F. 2d 771 (C.A. 3, 1967), or the "strong proof" rule of Ullman v. Commissioner, 264 F. 2d 305 (C.A. 2, 1959).
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Tannenwald, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ income tax for the year 1962 in the amount of $3,810.97. The sole question is whether certain sums, characterized in the pertinent agreements as payments for a covenant not to compete and an undertaking to be available for consultation, should be classified as ordinary income or whether said sums were in reality part of the consideration for the sale of the patent and/or stock and therefore should be classified as capital gain.
All of the facts are stipulated and are found accordingly.
Petitioners are husband and wife…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Commissioner v. DanielsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- Danielson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
- Ullman v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Hamlin's Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Nowel's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
- Schulz v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Enoch v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Yelencsics v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Lucas v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Spector v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979
- Muskat v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.