Hale v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
24 T.C.M. 1497 (1965)
Facts
The tax commissioner assessed deficiencies on tax returns filed by Herman Hale and other partners in The Hale Company (Hale Co.) jointly with their spouses (collectively, taxpayers) (plaintiffs). Hale Co. had purchased a tract of land and formed a partnership called The Walnut Company, Ltd. (Walnut) with a construction company and another individual to subdivide the tract into lots and build and sell homes. The partnership agreement provided that Walnut would dissolve after all the homes were sold. In exchange for agreeing to provide future services to Walnut, Hale Co. received a right to participate as a partner in Walnut’s future profits. When Walnut had built 111 houses and had deposits or purchase agreements from 39 buyers but had yet to make any profits, Hale Co. sold 90 percent of its partnership interest in Walnut to D-K Investment Corporation (D-K) for $125,000. That meant D-K acquired 90 percent of Hale Co.’s partnership interest in Walnut’s future profits. At that point, the parties could reasonably estimate the profits that would be made on each house, but not how many would sell or when. The taxpayers treated the proceeds from the sale as capital gains on their joint tax returns, claiming that a right to share in income is a partnership interest, which is generally treated as a capital asset. After the commissioner assessed deficiencies, the taxpayers petitioned the tax court for review. The tax court consolidated their cases to decide together.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 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.