- 76 -
Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, 10 T.C. 158 (1948), affd. 173 F.2d
170 (9th Cir. 1949); Martin v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 681
(M.D. Ga. 1971).
Respondent argues that the evidence in the record does not
permit us to allocate the total Woodbine sale price of $680,000
among component assets qualifying and not qualifying for
installment treatment. Cf. Monaghan v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 680
(1963). Respondent therefore insists that Alice Berger has
failed to carry her burden of showing that any of her gain
qualifies for installment treatment and that therefore her entire
gain on the sale to the Kunkowskis is taxable as ordinary income.
We disagree.
The rule of Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir.
1930), permits us to approximate the amounts of gain allocable to
assets that qualify for the installment method. Cohan treatment
has been given to allocations of accounting expenses between the
capitalizable cost of selling a capital asset and the deductible
expense of general auditing duties, Ellis Banking Corp. v.
Commissioner, 688 F.2d 1376, 1383 (11th Cir. 1982), affg. in part
and remanding in part on this issue T.C. Memo. 1981-123, of an
estate's partnership assets to land, a building, and personal
property, McKelvey v. Commissioner, 246 F.2d 609, 613 (3d Cir.
1957), affg. T.C. Memo. 1956-70, and of the purchase price of a
business among physical assets of the business, good will, and a
covenant not to compete, Kreider v. Commissioner, 762 F.2d 580,
589 (7th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-68; Levine v.
Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011