Misegades v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held, petitioners are not entitled to deduct depreciation or amortization on the cost of a patent law practice purchased for a lump-sum payment since (1) the asset acquired was an intangible capital asset in the nature of goodwill, (2) the asset had no ascertainable useful life, and (3) the payment was not for a personal privilege, the value of which would end upon the retirement or death of the purchaser.
1Opinion of the Court
Scott, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ income taxes for the calendar years 1964 and 1965 in the amounts of $1,330.46 and $1,068.80, respectively.
The issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled to -deduct in each of the years herein issue $4,500 as depreciation or amortization of an amount paid by one of the petitioners to the estate of the lawyer with whom he had been previously associated pursuant to an agreement between petitioner and the executor of the deceased lawyer’s estate.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of tbe facts have been stipulated and are found…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Seaboard Finance Company, Seaboard Finance Company, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CrossCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Manhattan Co. of Virginia, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
- Brooks v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Heigerick v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966
- E. Vance Walters and Kae L. Walters v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ithaca Indus. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
- Rudd v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
- Charleston v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- Holden Fuel Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1972
- Ithaca Indus. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.