Soffron v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioners, each an owner of an undivided one-fourth interest in a patent, assigned it to a partnership in which each petitioner held a one-fourth interest. Held, the assignment was not a transfer of all substantial rights to the patent for the purposes of section 1235, I.R.C. 1954. Held, further, the amounts realized constitute ordinary income under the provisions of section 707(b)(2), I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
Tietjfns, Judge:
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in income tax for the taxable year 1956 as follows:
Docket No. Deficiencies
78117_ $5, 381. 75
78118_ 5, 534.51
78119_ 5, 519. 09
78120_ 5, 549. 51
The sole question presented is whether the amount of $19,253.25 received by each petitioner in the taxable year 1956 was a long-term capital gain from the sale of a patent or the petitioner’s distributive share of the partnership income.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
Petitioners George hT. and Lillian Soffron, husband and wife, Peter and Merle Soffron, husband and wife, Stephen 1ST. and Frances E. Soffron,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commissioner v. TowerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Lusthaus v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Stephen N. Soffron, Etc. v. S. W. Lovell & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
3Cited by11 opinions
- Max A. Burde and Berthe C. Burde v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Bernard Weiss and Peggy S. Weiss v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Estate of Stahl v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Burde v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1964
- Emory v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1967
- Anthony Meggs & Beth Meggs v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2019
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.