- 37 -
598, 608 n.1 (1972) (Government made no argument that the amounts
in issue constituted ordinary income solely on the basis that
capital gain treatment is not permitted under section 1235
because the taxpayer's ownership of stock exceeded the limits set
out in section 1235(d)), affd. 486 F.2d 696 (1st Cir. 1973);
Busse v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 389, 392 n.4 (1972) (Commissioner
conceded pursuant to Rev. Rul. 69-482, supra, that the taxpayer-
holder was entitled to capital gain treatment of his receipts
from the sale of a patent to a related party under sections of
the Code other than section 1235), affd. 479 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir.
1973); see also Rev. Rul. 78-328, 1978-2 C.B. 215 (citing Rev.
Rul. 69-482, supra); Priv. Ltr. Rul. 83-26-035 (Mar. 25, 1983)
(same); Tech. Adv. Mem. 84-21-006 (Jan. 31, 1984) (same).
Except for his argument that the facts of the instant case
are distinguishable from the facts in Poole v. Commissioner,
supra, respondent has made no argument that Rev. Rul. 69-482,
supra, has no application in this case. We find that the
essential facts of Poole v. Commissioner, supra, are present in
this case, that in the hands of Lea, the patents were long-term
capital assets as defined in section 1221, and that the Leas
satisfy the requirements of the ruling.10
10We note that sec. 1239(a), I.R.C. 1954 (as amended),
requires ordinary income treatment of the gain recognized by the
sale or exchange of property to a related person, if the property
(continued...)
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011