Parke, Davis & Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
Held, the present agreement constituted an assignment of one half the beneficial interest of petitioner in certain patents and future improvements thereon and the consideration received therefor, in excess, only, of the basis of the assets assigned, constituted taxable gain.
1Opinion of the Court
opinion.
Leech:
The petitioner here seeks redetermination of a deficiency of $36,430 in income tax for 1929, arising from disallowance by respondent of a credit taken on account of income taxes of $70,123.64 *428paid for that year by petitioner to the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Eespondent, by his answer, raised an additional issue and asked a corresponding increase in the deficiency, alleging that a sum of $612,150 received by petitioner in the taxable year under a contract covering certain patent rights, and treated by it as a return of capital, was in fact taxable…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Peugh v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Heryford v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- American Circular Loom Co. v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Oliver v. Rumford Chemical WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Allen, Collector of Internal Revenue v. WernerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1951
- Orla E. Watson and Edith Watson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- Tolwinsky v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1986
- Kronner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.