Claude Neon Lights v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
1. Eight transactions whereby petitioner granted patent rights to corporations for stock considered and held to be nontaxable exchanges. 2. The granting of patent rights held to be assignments and not licenses; basis for gain determined. 3. Cost of conducting experiments directed to creating patentable inventions held to be capital expenditures and not deductible expenses.
1Opinion of the Court
*427OPINION.
Nature of rights granted. — The respondent argues that the patent rights granted were licenses as distinguished from assignments or other species of rights which might be considered as exchangeable property under the exchange and reorganization provisions of the statute. The general rule laid down by the cases is that the granting of an exclusive right to manufacture, use, and vend under a patent in a specified territory vests pro tanto title to the patent itself m the grantee. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 486, 493; Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 548; Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Bloomer v. McQuewanSupreme Court of the United States · 1853
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Durovic v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Koons v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1961
- Portland Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1940
- Hart-Bartlett-Sturtevant Grain Co. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1950
- E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.