Summary
finding that an amount which constituted a substitute for compensation was not eligible for installment sale reporting
Summary of this case from Mingo v. Comm'rOpinion
No. 20503.
December 18, 1963. Rehearing Denied January 31, 1964.
John Peace, Stanley Schoenbaum, San Antonio, Tex., for petitioners.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Crane C. Hauser, Chief Counsel, I.R.S., Eugene F. Colella, Atty., I.R.S., David O. Walter, Earl J. Silbert, Stephen B. Wolfberg, Michael I. Smith, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This case presents a factual situation indistinguishable for the purposes of the controlling legal principle from our decision in United States v. Eidson, (5th Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 111. It follows that the decision of the Tax Court, that amounts received by the taxpayers upon assignment of their rights under a general agency contract for a Texas statewide mutual assessment life insurance company were taxable as ordinary income, was correct, and that it should be and is affirmed.