Hartford-Fairmont Co. v. Commissioner

Board of Tax Appeals

Hartford-Fairmont Co. v. Commissioner

12 B.T.A. 98, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3604

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 1928

DocketDocket No. 9016.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 B.T.A. 98 (Hartford-Fairmont Co. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford-Fairmont Co. v. Commissioner, 12 B.T.A. 98, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3604 (bta 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[103]*103OPINION.

Green:

The question here is one of fact, namely, whether the inventions and patent applications owned by the petitioner on March 1, 1913, had any fair market value, and if so, what that value was. This we have determined from all of the evidence.

As set out in the findings, our conclusion, after considering the entire record, is that the inventions and patent applications owned by the petitioner on March 1, 1913, had a fair market value of at least $2,000,000. The petitioner had contended for a value of $2,400,000, with $1,500,000 apportioned to domestic rights and $900,000 to foreign. The respondent did not seriously object to the basis of the apportionment but on the contrary contended that such inventions had no value whatever on March 1, 1913. Under such circumstances we find that the $2,000,000 should be apportioned $1,300,000 to domestic rights and the balance, or $700,000, to foreign. The deficiencies should be recomputed by correcting the profit on the sales of the foreign rights during 1917 to 1920, inclusive, and by allowing a deduction for exhaustion from the date the principal patents were issued, namely, August 27, 1918.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

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

[103]*103OPINION.

Green:

The question here is one of fact, namely, whether the inventions and patent applications owned by the petitioner on March 1, 1913, had any fair market value, and if so, what that value was. This we have determined from all of the evidence.

As set out in the findings, our conclusion, after considering the entire record, is that the inventions and patent applications owned by the petitioner on March 1, 1913, had a fair market value of at least $2,000,000. The petitioner had contended for a value of $2,400,000, with $1,500,000 apportioned to domestic rights and $900,000 to foreign. The respondent did not seriously object to the basis of the apportionment but on the contrary contended that such inventions had no value whatever on March 1, 1913. Under such circumstances we find that the $2,000,000 should be apportioned $1,300,000 to domestic rights and the balance, or $700,000, to foreign. The deficiencies should be recomputed by correcting the profit on the sales of the foreign rights during 1917 to 1920, inclusive, and by allowing a deduction for exhaustion from the date the principal patents were issued, namely, August 27, 1918.

Judgment will be entered under Rule 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 B.T.A. 98, 1928 BTA LEXIS 3604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-fairmont-co-v-commissioner-bta-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack