Ruge v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

19 Citing cases

  1. United States Mineral Prods. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    52 T.C. 177 (U.S.T.C. 1969)   Cited 9 times

    Whether the payment is made in a lump sum or over a period of time in amounts based upon the use of the invention by the grantee is immaterial to this determination. Arthur C. Ruge, 26 T.C. 138 (1956); Vincent A. Marco, 25 T.C. 544 (1955). To determine the quantum of interest in the five Kempthorne patents transferred to CAFCAN under the Canadian agreement, we must look first to the legal relationships established by the Kempthorne agreement.

  2. Hooker Chemicals Plastics Corp. v. U.S.

    591 F.2d 652 (Fed. Cir. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    Consequently, such materials were ancillary and subsidiary to the technology transferred and we see no justification for attributing to them any portion of the consideration. PPG, supra, 55 T.C. at 1018; see also United States Mineral Products Co. v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 177, 199 (1969); Ruge v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 138, 143 (1956). In the present case, the agreements specified that the royalty payments were solely in consideration of the transfers of patents and know-how.

  3. Schmitt v. C.I.R

    271 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1959)   Cited 17 times

    Whether payment is made in a lump sum or over a period of time is immaterial. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 1890, 138 U.S. 252, 11 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed. 923; Arthur C. Ruge, 1956, 26 T.C. 138. But this applies to an exclusive right (or an undivided part or share in that exclusive right).

  4. C.A. Norgren Co. v. United States

    268 F. Supp. 816 (D. Colo. 1967)   Cited 5 times

    A much weightier problem is posed by the Government's assertion that at least part of the consideration received pursuant to the 1949 agreement with Shipston must be attributed to services rendered by plaintiff, which consideration would be taxable as ordinary income. Ruge v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 138 (1956); Kimble Glass Co. v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 183 (1947). It is only this question which we agree cannot be resolved at this juncture and which must await a further and more complete presentation of facts.

  5. Farris v. Commissioner

    No. 6314-09 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 12, 2010)

    A patent transferor may render ancillary and subsidiary services in connection with the sale and transfer of a patent without affecting the capital nature of the total sale proceeds. See Ruge v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 138 (1956); Gable v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-312. Ancillary and subsidiary services include providing the transferee with technical knowledge and consulting services that are an integral part of the patent transfer.

  6. Common Cause v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    112 T.C. 332 (U.S.T.C. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Cf. Glen O'Brien Movable Partition Co. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 492, 502 (1978) (“Where services are performed subsidiary and ancillary to the transfer of patent rights and proprietary know-how, they take on the nature of the patent rights and know-how as ‘property’.”); Ruge v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 138, 143 (1956) (“The consulting services * * * were ancillary and subsidiary to the assignments of the inventions”). In other words, payment for the one-time right to mail to names on a list, no matter how specialized that list is, is a royalty.

  7. Common Cause v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    112 T.C. 332 (U.S.T.C. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Cf.Glen O'Brien Movable Partition Co. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 492, 502 (1978) ("Where services are performed subsidiary and ancillary to the transfer of patent rights and proprietary know-how, they take on the nature of the patent rights and know-how as `property'."); Ruge v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 138, 143 (1956) ("The consulting services * * * were ancillary and subsidiary to the assignments of the inventions"). In other words, payment for the one-time right to mail to names on a list, no matter how specialized that list is, is a royalty.

  8. Kueneman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    68 T.C. 609 (U.S.T.C. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    (2) an undivided interest in the whole patent,Watson v. United States, 222 F.2d 689, 690—691 (10th Cir. 1955); Commissioner v. Hopkinson, 126 F.2d 406, 410 (2d Cir. 1942), affg. 42 B.T.A. 580 (1940); Kronner v. United States, 110 F.Supp. 730, 735 (Ct. Cl. 1953); Myers v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 258, 263 (1946); Taylor v. Commissioner, 16 T.C. 376, 384 (1951); Ruge v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 138, 141 (1956); Reid v. Commissioner, 26 T.C. 622, 632—633 (1956); see Lamar v. Granger, 99 F.Supp. 17, 36—37 (W.D.Pa. 1951); cf. Commissioner v. Celanese Corp., 140 F.2d 339, 341—342 (D.C. Cir. 1944), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. or (3) the exclusive right to the patent within a specific geographical area.

  9. Cox v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    62 T.C. 247 (U.S.T.C. 1974)

    Under the circumstances, this issue is properly before the Court. See Arthur C. Ruge, 26 T.C. 138 (1956). Section 483

  10. Ronan State Bank v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    62 T.C. 27 (U.S.T.C. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    All of this convinces us that respondent was neither surprised nor otherwise prejudiced. See Arthur C. Ruge, 26 T.C. 138 (1956). Thus, the question of whether petitioner effectively assigned the group insurance business was properly pleaded and before the Court.