Silver v. Commissioner

1956 T.C. Memo. 95, 15 T.C.M. 489, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 200
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 26, 1956
DocketDocket No. 50046.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1956 T.C. Memo. 95 (Silver 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
Silver v. Commissioner, 1956 T.C. Memo. 95, 15 T.C.M. 489, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 200 (tax 1956).

Opinion

Harold F. Silver and Madelyn Silver v. Commissioner.
Silver v. Commissioner
Docket No. 50046.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1956-95; 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 200; 15 T.C.M. (CCH) 489; T.C.M. (RIA) 56095;
April 26, 1956

*200 1. Held: Silver's transaction of January 22, 1947, with Joy Manufacturing Company, wherein the former transferred all of his right, title and interest in and to a continuous coal miner invention conceived by him and reduced to practice in excess of six months prior to the date of such transaction, constituted the outright sale of a capital asset which had been held by Silver for longer than six months, the profit on which sale is taxable as long-term capital gain.

2. Held: Petitioners failed to file a timely declaration of estimated tax for the year 1950 and respondent's imposition of an addition to tax for reason of such omission is sustained.

Charles J. Beise, Esq., First National Bank Building, Denver, Colo., and James A. Woods, Esq., for the*201 petitioners. William H. Welch, Esq., for the respondent.

VAN FOSSAN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

Respondent determined deficiencies in income taxes of petitioners and additions thereto, for years and in amounts, as follows:

Addition to Tax
§ 294 § 294
YearDeficiency(d)(1)(A) 1(d)(2)
1949$23,784.00
195036,284.58$5,567.68$2,122.60
195122,631.94

Respondent, on brief, concedes error with respect to the petitioners' liability for the additions to tax determined by him under Section 294(d)(2), supra. Thus the questions remaining to be resolved by us are: (1) Whether certain amounts received by petitioner, Harold F. Silver, in each of the years 1949 through 1951 from Joy Manufacturing Company represented long-term capital gains from the sale of a capital asset, ordinary income from the sale of an invention held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, or royalty income resulting from a licensing agreement; and (2) whether petitioners filed a timely declaration of estimated tax for the year 1950.

Findings*202 of Fact

The stipulation of facts filed by the parties, with exhibits attached, is adopted and by this reference made a part hereof.

The petitioners are Harold F. Silver (hereinafter referred to as Silver) and his wife, Madelyn, who, during the years involved, were resident in Denver, Colorado. They filed joint income tax returns for such years with the then collector of internal revenue for the district of Colorado.

Silver was born on March 15, 1901. In 1917, after he finished high school, Silver was employed for three years as a draftsman for the Ogden Iron Works in Ogden, Utah. He then went to New York City where he attended Columbia University. In 1922, he returned to Utah and was again employed by the Ogden Iron Works. The business of that company was the manufacture of general industrial equipment, including machinery used in the beet sugar industry and in coal mining. Silver served successively as draftsman, mechanical engineer, and, finally, as chief engineer and superintendent in charge of production. From 1923 to 1926, while so employed, Silver attended the University of Utah, where he continued his liberal arts studies. During the entire period from 1917 to 1931 (when*203 he severed his employment with Ogden Iron Works), Silver's employment with the Ogden Iron Works was concerned only with engineering, production, and personnel.

After leaving the OgdenIron Works in 1931, Silver designed a machine for the handling of sugar beets known as a beet piler, which he hoped to manufacture and sell. He was unable, at that time, to secure any orders for the machine, and he accepted employment as sales manager with and invested his money in a gas appliance sales concern. After resigning from this company, and in the latter part of 1932, Silver renewed his efforts to interest sugar beet companies in purchasing and using the beet piler which he proposed to manufacture and sell. He was successful in selling one such machine to Holly Sugar Corporation. He had the machine manufactured, and it was installed in 1933 and used successfully at Worland, Wyoming, by such corporation.

In 1933, Fred H. Roberts of Denver, Colorado, suggested to Silver that they organize a corporation to engage in the general manufacture of industrial machinery and to manufacture and sell the Silver beet piler. On January 24, 1934, the Silver-Roberts Iron Works, Inc., was organized, having*204 its place of business in Denver, Colorado. Roberts invested $2,510 and received 50.2 percent of the stock. Silver invested $2,490 and received 49.8 percent of the stock. Roberts was president and Silver was general manager. As general manager, Silver assumed full responsibility for all phases of the day-to-day business activities of the corporation, including sales, engineering, production, personnel, and the collection of accounts. These activities occupied Silver's full time and attention.

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

Related

Myers v. Comm'r
6 T.C. 258 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Diescher v. Commissioner
36 B.T.A. 732 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1956 T.C. Memo. 95, 15 T.C.M. 489, 1956 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-v-commissioner-tax-1956.