Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hopkinson
Decision Date | 06 March 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 37.,37. |
Citation | 126 F.2d 406 |
Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HOPKINSON. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. and Sewall Key and A. F. Prescott, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Herman Goldman, of New York City (Milton J. Levitt, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in the income taxes of the respondent for each of the calendar years 1934 and 1935 by treating as ordinary income certain payments made to her as the beneficiary of a trust which she had reported as capital gains. The Board upheld the taxpayer and the Commissioner filed a petition to review its decision. The issues in this respect are the same for both years. There is an additional issue for 1935. In that year the trustee paid $7500.00, out of the income of the trust which would otherwise have been distributable to the respondent, for legal services. She did not report that as part of her gross income. The Commissioner included it in determining the deficiency for that year but the Board reversed.
It found the facts as follows:
When the Commissioner first determined the deficiencies he did so partly on the ground that the contract was not for the sale of capital assets but merely for the payment of royalties. He did not rely upon this contention before the Board but wishes to do so now. We think that is permissible under Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037, as the respondent has been put to no disadvantage by way of surprise; has filed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kueneman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...v. Granger, 99 F.Supp. 17, 41 (W.D.Pa. 1951). 7. Watson v. United States, 222 F.2d 689, 690—691 (10th Cir. 1955); Commissioner v. Hopkinson, 126 F.2d 406, 410 (2d Cir. 1942), affg. 42 B.T.A. 580 (1940); Kronner v. United States, 110 F.Supp. 730, 735 (Ct. Cl. 1953); Myers v. Commissioner, 6 ......
-
Lámar v. Granger
...not prevent the vesting of title to the property in the individual to whom the patentee assigns his rights. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hopkinson, 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 406. The parties are not required to be clairvoyant or prescient and determine beforehand a lump amount; it is a matter......
-
Crook v. United States
...L.Ed. 577; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Celanese Corp., 1944, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 292, 140 F.2d 339; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hopkinson, 2 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 406, 410; Rotorite Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 7 Cir., 1941, 117 F.2d 245; Kimble Glass Co., supra, 9 ......
-
Allen v. Commissioner
...F. 2d 339 (C.A.D.C. 1944), affirming a Memorandum Opinion of this Court Dec. 12,943-B; Commissioner v. Hopkinson 42-1 USTC ¶ 9330, 126 F. 2d 406 (C.A. 2, 1942), affirming Dec. 11,286 42 B.T.A. 580 We first considered a variable price patent assignment in Edward C. Myers Dec. 14,992, 6 T.C. ......