Norton v. United States

This tax refund action involving the characterization of gain realized by plaintiffs from their sale of a timber *218cutting contract is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. The facts essential to the disposition of the case are not in dispute. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the defendant that the gain realized by the plaintiffs does not qualify as gain from the sale of a capital asset. We, therefore, allow defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff,1 Emmett E. Norton, an individual doing business as the Norton Logging Company, on January 30, 1968,…