James F. and Dorothy A. Davis - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          Individual Income Tax Return, for their taxable year 1997 (peti-            
          tioners’ 1997 joint return).  In petitioners’ 1997 joint return,            
          they reported petitioners’ assignment as a sale of a capital                
          asset held for more than 1 year, a sale price of $1,040,000, a              
          cost basis of $7,009, and long-term capital gain of $1,032,991.             
          In that return, petitioners also reported as ordinary income the            
          $514,000 payment that they received in 1997 from CSL.                       
               In the notice that respondent issued to petitioners with               
          respect to their taxable year 1997, respondent determined, inter            
          alia, the following:                                                        
               b) It is determined that you [petitioners] received the                
               amount of $1,040,000.00 from Singer Asset Finance                      
               Company, for the tax year ended December 31, 1997, in                  
               payment of assignment of rights to future lottery                      
               payments from the State of California.  This amount is                 
               determined to be ordinary income because rights to                     
               future annual lottery payments do not meet the defini-                 
               tion of a capital asset according to the provisions of                 
               the Internal Revenue Code.  Therefore, income is in-                   
               creased $1,040,000.00 for the year 1997.                               
                                     Discussion                                       
               The parties agree that an amount received as a lottery prize           
          constitutes ordinary income.  The parties’ dispute is over                  
          whether the $1,040,000 that petitioners received in exchange for            
          petitioners’ assignment is ordinary income or capital gain.4                

               4Our resolution of the issue presented does not depend on              
          who has the burden of proof in this case.                                   
               On brief, respondent represents that an issue similar to the           
          one presented here is pending in certain other courts.  See                 
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011