Flower v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
1. Payments received by petitioner under an agreement terminating a contract under which petitioner had the right to perform personal services on a commission basis is taxable to petitioners as ordinary income rather than capital gain. 2. Business expenses paid by petitioner under an agreement which provided that petitioner would be reimbursed for the expenses upon termination of the agreement are not deductible as ordinary and necessary expenses of petitioner's business.
1Opinion of the Court
DkbNNEN, Judge:
Eespondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax as follows:
Year Deficiency
1965 _$3,415. 34
1966 _ 5,057.73
1967 _ 4,780.37
Tlie issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to capital gains treatment on payments received under a contract which purported to terminate a sales franchise agreement petitioner husband had with Eowell Laboratories, Inc:; and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to certain deductions for business expenditures made under a reimbursement agreement.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Certain facts have been stipulated and are found…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Commissioner v. P. G. Lake, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Canelo v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Patchen v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
- Universal Oil Products Co. v. Campbell (United States, Intervenor) (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- United States v. Charles G. Eidson, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kingsbury v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Rodeway Inns of America v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974
- Davoli v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1994
- Louismet v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
- Foote v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.