From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Putchat v. C.I.R

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 4, 1970
425 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1970)

Opinion

No. 18292.

Argued April 9, 1970.

Decided May 4, 1970. Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

Arthur Pelikow, New York City, (Robert B. Alexander, Jr., Stuart M. Berkman, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.

William S. Eastabrook, Dept. of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C. (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Thomas L. Stapleton, Janet R. Spragens, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges, and LATCHUM, District Judge.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Nathan and Sally Putchat filed a joint federal income tax return for 1959. The Commissioner subsequently determined that they improperly reported as long-term capital gain $75,000.00 received in complete settlement of a lawsuit by Nathan seeking to enforce his rights under a contract. Taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. The court rejected their petition, holding that "an amount received by petitioner as consideration for the release of all his rights under an employment contract * * * constitutes ordinary income." 52 T.C. 470 (1969). This appeal followed.

We have reviewed the record made below in the light of the contentions of counsel both in their briefs and at oral argument. We are convinced that the Tax Court correctly decided the issues of fact and law and therefore affirm on its opinion.

The judgment of the Tax Court will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Putchat v. C.I.R

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 4, 1970
425 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1970)
Case details for

Putchat v. C.I.R

Case Details

Full title:Nathan PUTCHAT and Sally Putchat, husband and wife, Appellants, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: May 4, 1970

Citations

425 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

Worthy v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

The cases relied upon by them involve transactions which the courts found as a fact were not compensatory.…