Hudson v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
20 T.C. 734 (1953)
On November 23, 1929, Mary Mallory Harahan won a court judgment against Howard Cole for $75,702.12. On June 30, 1943, Galvin Hudson and Hillsman Taylor (plaintiffs) purchased the judgment. Each acquired a 50 percent interest in the judgment. Together, the plaintiffs paid a total of $11,004. In May 1945, Cole paid the plaintiffs $21,150 in full satisfaction of the judgment against him. Both plaintiffs reported the gain they realized as long-term capital gains for 1945. The Commissioner (defendant) disallowed the characterization of the proceeds as long-term capital gain and taxed them as ordinary income. All parties stipulated that the transaction between Cole and the plaintiffs was bona fide and that the judgment was property and a capital asset in the possession of the plaintiffs.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.