David K. and Elizabeth Simpson - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               This is not an issue of first impression.  In Davis v.                 
          Commissioner, 119 T.C. 1 (2002), we decided the same issue under            
          almost identical factual circumstances.  The taxpayers in that              
          case also won a California State lottery prize and subsequently             
          assigned a portion of future annual lottery payments to Singer in           
          exchange for a lump-sum payment.  Id. at 3.  We held that the               
          right to receive such payments does not constitute a capital                
          asset within the meaning of section 1221.  Id. at 7.  Petitioners           
          are aware of our holding in Davis; however, they contend that               
          case was incorrectly decided.                                               
               In Davis, we thoroughly analyzed section 1221 and relevant             
          caselaw interpreting the statute.  We recently relied on and                
          followed our analysis in Davis.  See Johns v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 2003-140; Boehme v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-81.6  No            
          purpose would be served by repeating the analysis that led us to            
          hold in Davis that the right to receive future annual lottery               
          payments does not constitute a capital asset.7                              



               6Accord United States v. Maginnis, 89 AFTR 2d 2002-3028,               
          2002-2 USTC par. 50,494 (D. Or. 2002) (holding that the amount              
          that the taxpayer received in exchange for the taxpayer’s                   
          assignment to a third party of his right to receive certain                 
          future annual lottery payments is ordinary income).                         
               7On brief, petitioners imply that the right to receive                 
          future annual lottery payments is analogous to currency                     
          contracts, stocks, bonds, and options.   Unlike the situations              
          cited by petitioners, in this instance petitioners received the             
          lump-sum payment as a substitute for the right to receive                   
          ordinary income.                                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011