Baier v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
Petitioner incurred legal expenses in connection with the disposition of a patent and deducted them as an ordinary and necessary expense under sec. 212(1). Held, these legal expenses have their origin in the disposition of a capital asset and must be used to offset the realized capital gains.
1Opinion of the Court
Sterrett, Judge:
The respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ income tax for the calendar years as follows:
Year Deficiency
1969 _ $1,622
1970 _ 1,599
1971_ 1,470
The sole issue in controversy is whether certain legal expenses qualify as an ordinary expense under section 212(1), I.R.C. 1954,1 or whether said expenses must be capitalized and offset against the capital gain realized from the disposition of a capital asset.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Most of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, together with the exhibits attached thereto, are incorporated herein by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Jack E. Golsen and Sylvia H. Golsen v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1971
- United States v. GilmoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Woodward v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Lykes v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Alexander v. Internal Revenue Service of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Alexander v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1995
- Estate of Klein v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Estate of Richard Baier v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Wagner v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.