McFall v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
One who is employed under contract as a skilled worker, who "sells" his employment contract during its term, but more than two years after it was made, to a third person for cash, is not entitled to treat the gain as capital gain.
1Opinion of the Court
*110OPINION.
Sternhagbn:
The Commissioner first thought, when determining the deficiency, that what petitioners received from Clutter & Co. was by way of damages for a supposed breach of the contract of employment. But there is nothing to support such a hypothesis either as to breach or damage, and this contention is not now made.
The petitioners’ contention is that they sold their contracts in 1929, that the contracts were property, that they had owned the contracts since 1926, more than two years, and that the resulting gain, admitted to be $175,000 each, was a capital net gain under the Revenue…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Co. v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
3Cited by16 opinions
- Pridemark, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Nelson Weaver Realty Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Drybrough v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Foxe v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Kathman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.