Hessert v. Commissioner

6 T.C.M. 1190, 1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 42
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedOctober 31, 1947
DocketDocket No. 10598.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 T.C.M. 1190 (Hessert 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
Hessert v. Commissioner, 6 T.C.M. 1190, 1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 42 (tax 1947).

Opinion

Raymond M. Hessert v. Commissioner.
Hessert v. Commissioner
Docket No. 10598.
United States Tax Court
1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 42; 6 T.C.M. (CCH) 1190; T.C.M. (RIA) 47301;
October 31, 1947
Robert Ash, Esq., 545 Munsey Bldg., Washington, D.C., and John Y. Merrell, Esq., for the petitioner. Neil D. McCarthy, Esq., for the respondent.

HILL

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

HILL, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for the calendar year 1943 in the amount of $1,609.34. The adjustments reflected in the deficiency notice giving rise to the deficiency are not here in controversy. Petitioner here claims that certain payments received by him during 1942 and 1943 from Remington Rand, Inc., constituted proceeds from the sale of capital assets held by him more than six months. Petitioner's original returns for these years treated these payments as ordinary income in the form of rent and royalties. On the basis of this claim petitioner seeks a refund for the year 1943*43 in the amount of $1,694.92. Due to the forgiveness feature applicable to the years 1942 and 1943 the deficiency determined by respondent and the refund claimed by petitioner pertain to the latter year. The question is whether certain payments received by petitioner from Remington Rand during 1942 and 1943 constitute capital gain or ordinary income.

Petitioner's return for 1942 was filed with the collector of internal revenue for the first district of New Jersey. Petitioner's return for 1943 was filed with the collector for the 28th district of New York.

Findings of Fact

Petitioner is an individual residing in Larchmont, New York. During or prior to 1930 petitioner applied to the United States Patent Office for three patents relating to photographing, endorsing and perforating machines for checks and similar business paper. During December 1933 these applications were granted. Prior to 1937 petitioner never assigned or transferred these patents.

On July 28, 1937, petitioner entered into a written contract with Remington Rand. This contract is in evidence herein as Exhibit 6. By reference all the recitals and provisions of the contract are made a part of our findings of fact. *44 This contract contains the following recitals and provisions, among others:

"WHEREAS Hessert is skilled and experienced in the building, selling and servicing of photographic devises which handle, convey and photograph business documents in rapid succession on photographic film made of celluloid, or similar material in strips or rolls preferably of 16mm. width, and is skilled in the selling and servicing of consumable supplies used therewith, including film, and whereas Hessert has done certain sales development work which has created actual and potential market for such devices and consumable supplies therefor, including film, and

"WHEREAS Hessert represents that he is the owner of inventions in the photographic field as more fully described in the following United States Letters Patent No. 1,939,446, dated December 12, 1933, No. 1,941,003, dated December 26, 1933, and No. 1,941,004, dated December 26, 1933, and patent application Serial No. 76,905, filed April 29, 1936, and whereas Hessert represents that he has a non-exclusive license under United States Patent No. 1,614,619, known as the Kaplan patent, and whereas Hessert represents that he has the full and exclusive right*45 to grant licenses or to sell and dispose of the inventions comprehended in said Letters Patent and patent application, and the patent or patents which may be granted upon said application and the right to grant a sublicense under the said Kaplan patent United States, No. 1,614,619, and that said inventions and said Letters Patent and patent application are free and clear of any liens or incumbrances and whereas machines covered by some of said Letters Patent or said patent application have actually been built and are being operated by commercial houses which have purchased the same, and are doing the required work satisfactorily, and

* * *

"WHEREAS, The Company desires to acquire the exclusive right, privilege and license to manufacture, vend, rent or otherwise dispose of or put to use the said inventions comprehended in the enumerated Letters Patent or said application now pending, together with its or their parts, appliances and appurtenances throughout the United States of America and its territories and dependencies and in such other countries where corresponding patents have been obtained by Hessert, for the uses and purposes hereinafter described and more fully set forth, *46 which license the inventor is willing to grant upon the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained;

"NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants, representations, promises and agreements herein contained the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:

"FIRST: That the Company will pay to the inventory Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars at the time of the execution by the inventor of this agreement.

"SECOND: The inventor agrees to assist The Company by counsel, advice, consultation and other like ways in familiarizing the Company with the problems and methods of handling this particular type of business, including the building, selling, servicing and supplying consumable supplies including film for the said devices for handling, conveying and photographing business documents in rapid succession on photographic film to the end that The Company may be able to build or have built for its use, sale, service and supply consumable supplies including film, for said devices in the largest quantity possible in the shortest period of time consistent with sound business methods.

"THIRD: Hessert agrees to, and does hereby grant to The Company the sole and*47

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

Related

Gable v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 312 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Spence v. United States
156 F. Supp. 556 (Court of Claims, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 T.C.M. 1190, 1947 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hessert-v-commissioner-tax-1947.