David K. and Elizabeth Simpson - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               The doctrine of stare decisis generally requires that we               
          follow the holding of a previously decided case, absent special             
          justification.  Sec. State Bank v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 210,              
          213-214 (1998), affd. 214 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2000).  After                
          reviewing petitioners’ arguments in support of their position               
          that the right to receive future annual lottery payments                    
          constitutes a capital asset, we find nothing therein that would             
          cause us to refrain from applying the doctrine of stare decisis.            
          Accordingly, we rely on the legal analysis in Davis and hold that           
          (1) the right in this case to receive the future lottery payments           
          does not constitute a capital asset within the meaning of section           
          1221, and (2) the lump-sum payment of $4,485,000 received from              
          Singer in exchange for that right is ordinary income.                       

                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for respondent.                          




















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  

Last modified: May 25, 2011