HARRY ROFF AND MARCIA ROFF, PETITIONERS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the gain realized from the sale of annuity contracts shortly before maturity constitutes ordinary income, not capital gain.
A taxpayer sold two annuity contracts before their maturity date. The taxpayer sought to have the excess of the sales price over the net cost taxed at…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Annuity Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Taxpayer in good faith sold to a third party two annuity contracts shortly before their maturity. He contends that the excess of sales price over net cost should be taxed at capital gains rates. The Tax Court, in an excellent opinion by Judge Bruce, upheld the Commissioner’s finding that the sales resulted in ordinary income to the petitioner. We must agree.
Admittedly petitioner’s gain arises from the fixed interest on the annuities. He would have been taxed on that gain as ordinary income had the contracts been surrendered or after their maturity.
Section 72, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 28 U.S.C. § 72; cf. Bodine v. Commissioner, 103 F. 2d 982, 983 (3 Cir. 1939), cert. den. 308 U.S. 576, 60 S.Ct. 92, 84 L.Ed.
483. Though petitioner had held these capital asset contracts for more than six months, what he received was the equivalent of interest on their sale. That sale cannot be held to “ * * * convert what would in time constitute ordinary income * * * into capital gain.” Arnfeld v. United States, 163 F.Supp. 865, 869, 143 Ct.Cl. 277 (1958), cert. den. 359 U.S. 943, 79 S.Ct. 722, 3 L.Ed.2d 676. As was said in United States v. Snow, 223 F. 2d 103, 108 (9 Cir. 1955), “ * * * the assignment of accrued ordinary income must be treated separately from the assignment of the capital assets which produced the income.”
It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that even assuming his gains are ordinary income, under Section 72(e) (3) of the 1954 Code they should be included in his “ * * * gross income * * * rata-bly over the taxable year in which received and the preceding 2 taxable years.” Section 72(e) (1) specifically states “If any amount is received under an annuity * * * contract * * * ” (Emphasis supplied), (3) may be applicable but there is nothing in the section to uphold petitioner’s proposition that his sale proceeds not received " * * * under an annuity * * * contract” come within it. See H.R. 1337 and S.R. 1622 to accompany H.R. 8300 (P.L. 591) 83d Cong. 2nd Sess. both at p. 11 (1954), U.S.Code Cong, and Adm.News, 1954, p.
4025.
Section 72(e) deals with lump sum payments by the insurer under a contract in full discharge of all contractual obligations. See 1 Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation, Section 6A.07, p. 22.
The decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The First Nat'l Bank OF Kan. City & Arthur Mag v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 309 F.2d 587 (8th Cir. 1962)
-
Gallun v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 327 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1964)
Authorities Cited
- United States & Calvin E. Wright v. Snow, 223 F.2d 103 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Arnfeld v. United States, 359 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1959)
- Bodine v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 103 F.2d 982 (3d Cir. 1939)
- Corrigan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 308 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1939)
- R. L. Blaffer & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 308 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1939)