Busse v. Commissioner

479 F.2d 1147 (1973)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Busse v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
479 F.2d 1147 (1973)

Facts

On March 20, 1958, Curtis Busse (plaintiff) assigned to his brother an undivided one-half interest in an invention he had created. The invention received a patent on August 16, 1960. The brother’s one-half interest passed to his widow upon his death in 1962. On January 2, 1966, Busse and the widow organized Busse Bros., Inc. (the corporation), in which each owned 50 percent of the stock. On the same day, Busse, the widow, and the corporation entered into an oral agreement as follows: the shareholders would sell their interest in the patent to the corporation, and the corporation would pay Busse and the widow quarterly installments during the life of the patent, equal to 5 percent of the corporation’s net selling price of the devices covered by the patent. In 1967 the corporation paid Busse $36,029.01, which represented his one-half share. For the tax year 1967, Busse reported this amount as a long-term gain received on the sale of a capital asset. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) determined a deficiency of $1,659.47. The IRS found that, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 483, only $33,011.81 of the payments was a capital gain, and the remaining amount was unstated interest on an installment sale, taxable as ordinary income. Busse petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination. Busse argued that under IRC § 483(d)(4)—which provided an exception for the sale or exchange of patents stating that IRC § 483 did not apply to an amount contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred—the remaining amount should not be treated as unstated interest. The IRS argued that strict adherence to IRC § 483 would shock moral and common sense and, therefore, the court should depart from the letter of the law. The tax court held there was no 1967 deficiency. The IRS appealed. [Ed.’s note: In the Revenue Act of 1964, the subsection under discussion was named IRC § 483(f)(4), which is how it is referenced in the opinion. The casebook excerpt uses the current name of this subsection in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.]

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hastings, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership