Young v. Comm'r
United States Tax Court
Patent royalty payments received in 1951, 1952, and 1953 pursuant to an agreement whereby all patent interests were assigned for the period of the agreement, said agreement being subject to termination at any time by either party on 6 months' prior notice, held, not received from the transfer of all substantial interests in the patents within the purview of section 117 (q), I. R. C. 1939, and are therefore taxable as ordinary income.
1Opinion of the Court
Train, Judge:
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ income taxes and additions to tax as follows:
[[Image here]]
Petitioners dispute respondent’s determination that certain patent royalty payment receipts were ordinary income and not capital gains.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
Some of the facts are stipulated and as stipulated are adopted as findings of fact.
Petitioners filed a joint income tax return for the year 1951 with the then collector of internal revenue for the Upper Manhattan district of New York, New York.
Petitioners filed a joint income tax return for the year 1952 with the director…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- United States v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Myers v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1946
- United States v. Eben H. Carruthers and Nancy CarruthersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Philbrick v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Arthur M. And Ruth F. Young v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Rodgers v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Taylor-Winfield Corp. v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1971
- Rouverol v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Blake v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1976
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.