Smith v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
313 F.2d 16 (1962)
Facts
Geologist and U.S. Navy photo-intelligence officer V. Zay Smith (plaintiff) developed an idea to use aerial photography of geologic formations to find oil and petroleum. Smith and three others entered a partnership called Geophoto Services under a five-year partnership agreement. When the partners extended for another five-year period, they revised the articles to provide a way to expel a partner and specifically stated that no value would be assigned goodwill in valuing a partner’s interest. In 1957, the partners voted to expel Smith. In accordance with the revised articles, Smith received $77,000, over the $53,264 book value of Smith’s interest. The extra $23,735 represented a $2,045 salary payment and a $21,689 “premium.” Smith and his wife filed a return reporting the $23,735 as capital gain. The tax commissioner determined the entire excess payment was ordinary income and assessed a deficiency. The Smiths petitioned the tax court for review. The commissioner argued that the $2,045 salary payment was a guaranteed payment and that the remainder liquidated Smith’s distributive share of partnership income. The Smiths countered that the entire payment was for goodwill and thus capital gain. The tax court found the excess payment taxable as ordinary income. The Smiths appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 706,000 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.
