Risko v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Payment made by petitioner to his partner to acquire her interest in their partnership held a capital expenditure rather than a deductible expense, and held, further, on the facts, amortizable over the remaining life of their partnership agreement, petitioner's partner having no interest beyond that.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
OppeR, Judge:
It is impossible to distinguish these facts from those in Ethel Sperling, 20 T. C. 1014. See also Kenworthy v. Commissioner, (C. A. 3) 197 F. 2d 525, affirming per curiam Memorandum Opinion of the Tax Court, filed January 25, 1952. The cases relied on by petitioner1 are Unlike this case and require rejection as authority here on the same grounds as those stated in the Sperling case:
In the Aitkin and Mosser cases, the remaining partners acquired no increased interests in their respective partnerships by virtue of their payments to the retiring partners. In the Aitkin case,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Maletis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Bell v. Harrison. Bell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1954
- H. S. Anderson, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Heller Trust v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Fry v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
- Triangle Publications, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Axelrod v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Silling v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1957
- Cosmopolitan Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1959
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.