Ely v. Commissioner

1960 T.C. Memo. 142, 19 T.C.M. 743, 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 146
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 30, 1960
DocketDocket No. 56220.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1960 T.C. Memo. 142 (Ely v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ely v. Commissioner, 1960 T.C. Memo. 142, 19 T.C.M. 743, 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 146 (tax 1960).

Opinion

James B. Ely and Mary W. Ely v. Commissioner.
Ely v. Commissioner
Docket No. 56220.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1960-142; 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 146; 19 T.C.M. (CCH) 743; T.C.M. (RIA) 60142;
June 30, 1960
*146

Held: (1) That $17,845.13 of the total amount received by petitioner upon his retirement or withdrawal from the Acuff Clinic, a medical partnership formed by petitioner and six other doctors in 1947, which retirement or withdrawal was made effective as of September 1, 1950, represents his pro rata share, less withdrawals, of the profits of the partnership for the period January 1 through August 31, 1950, and as such is taxable as ordinary income under the provisions of sections 22(a) and 182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939;

(2) That the monthly payments on said amount received by petitioner in 1950, 1951, and 1952, are taxable in the years received, and

(3) That petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 294(d)(1)(A), but are not liable for any additions to tax under section 294(d)(2).

Charles D. Snepp, Esq., Fidelity Bank Building, Knoxville, Tenn., and Myron R. Ely, Esq., for the petitioners. Jack D. Yarbrough, Esq., for the respondent.

BRUCE

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

BRUCE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in income tax, additions to tax, and an overassessment in tax as follows:

Additions to Tax
Sec.Sec.
Over
YearDeficiency294(d)(1)(A)294(d)(2)Assessment
1950$6,055.02$748.68$449.21
1951220.10146.73$1,276.90
19521,521.48

An *147 order of this Court was entered on February 20, 1958, granting respondent's motion to dismiss this proceeding with respect to the year 1951 for lack of jurisdiction. Certain adjustments have been conceded by the parties. The following issues remain for decision:

(1) Whether $17,845.13 received by petitioner James B. Ely in connection with his withdrawal from a partnership known as Acuff Clinic was ordinary income;

(2) Whether the entire $17,845.13 was taxable to petitioners in the year 1950;

(3) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 294(d)(1)(A) and section 294(d)(2), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, for the year 1950.

Findings of Fact

The stipulated facts are so found and incorporated herein by this reference. The petitioners, James B. and Mary W. Ely, husband and wife, resided in Knoxville, Tennessee, during the years involved in this proceeding. James B. Ely, who is a duly licensed physician, will sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner. The petitioners filed their joint income tax returns for the years 1950 and 1952 with the collector or district director of internal revenue, Knoxville, Tennessee. The petitioners filed their income tax returns *148 on the cash receipts and disbursements basis.

Petitioner was licensed to practice medicine in 1939. Prior to entering the Army in 1942, he practiced medicine with Herbert Acuff with offices in the Medical Arts Building in Knoxville, Tennessee. Petitioner returned to Knoxville in 1945 and resumed his practice with Acuff. Soon after petitioner's return, he and another doctor conceived the idea of establishing a medical clinic in Knoxville and convinced Acuff of the need therefor. They also interested several specialists in various medical fields, and sought a suitable location and building for the clinic. On May 30, 1946, petitioner and several other doctors, each in his individual capacity as lessee, executed a 20-year lease with a renewal option to a three-story building at 514 W. Church Avenue in Knoxville. Subsequently the lease was transferred to a partnership known as the Acuff Clinic, of which petitioner and six other doctors were members. The partnership became active on March 1, 1947. Pertinent portions of the partnership agreement dated March 1, 1947, are as follows:

"THIS AGREEMENT made this 1st day of March 1947 between HERBERT ACUFF, KYLE C. COPENHAVER, BERGEIN M. OVERHOLT,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commissioner v. Acker
361 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 1959)
United States v. Shapiro
178 F.2d 459 (Eighth Circuit, 1949)
Swiren v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
183 F.2d 656 (Seventh Circuit, 1950)
Meyer v. United States
213 F.2d 278 (Seventh Circuit, 1954)
United States v. Barbara B. Donoho
275 F.2d 489 (Eighth Circuit, 1960)
Le Sage v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
173 F.2d 826 (Fifth Circuit, 1949)
Doyle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
102 F.2d 86 (Fourth Circuit, 1939)
Helvering v. Smith
90 F.2d 590 (Second Circuit, 1937)
Bouche v. Commissioner
18 T.C. 144 (U.S. Tax Court, 1952)
Dial v. Commissioner
24 T.C. 117 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Williams v. Commissioner
28 T.C. 1000 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
Tarbox Corp. v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 35 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Karsch v. Commissioner
8 T.C. 1327 (U.S. Tax Court, 1947)
Garrett Holding Corp. v. Commissioner
9 T.C. 1029 (U.S. Tax Court, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1960 T.C. Memo. 142, 19 T.C.M. 743, 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ely-v-commissioner-tax-1960.