From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
Spireas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo. 2016-163 (2016)
Facts
Spiridon Spireas (plaintiff) owned, jointly or individually, numerous patents related to the liquisolid technology that was useful in the manufacture of drugs. Spireas and a colleague granted Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (Mutual) a license to use the liquisolid technology for the development of new drug products that would later be unanimously selected by the parties and, after such selection, produced and sold in the United States (1998 license). At the time, Spireas was also collaborating with other pharmaceutical companies to develop formulations using the liquisolid technology and planned to explore the use of the technology in the field of nutritional supplements. Thus, the 1998 license denied Mutual the right to use the technology with respect to products that Spireas and his colleagues were developing or were in negotiations to develop with other parties outside the pharmaceutical industry. In March 2000, the parties signed an engagement letter stating that they had selected three drugs for development. On his federal income tax returns, Spireas reported royalty income received from Mutual as long-term capital gain. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) issued a notice of deficiency to Spireas after determining that the royalties should have been reported as ordinary income. Spireas appealed the IRS’s determination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lauber, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
