- 6 -
Commissioner, supra; Lattera v. Commissioner, supra; Clopton v.
Commissioner, supra; Simpson v. Commissioner, supra; Johns v.
Commissioner, supra; Boehme v. Commissioner, supra. Given the
similarity of facts, it would serve no purpose to repeat the
analysis provided in Davis v. Commissioner, supra. See also Sec.
State Bank v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 210, 213-214 (1998)(“The
doctrine of stare decisis generally requires that we follow the
holding of a previously decided case, absent special
justification.”), affd. 214 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2000).
Petitioners try to distinguish themselves from the Davis v.
Commissioner, supra, line of cases because of Mr. Wolman’s
“investment” of time and money. Petitioners do not have any
1(...continued)
(4) accounts or notes receivable acquired in the
ordinary course of trade or business for services
rendered or from the sale of property described in
paragraph (1);
(5) a publication of the United States Government
(including the Congressional Record) which is received
from the United States Government or any agency
thereof, other than by purchase at the price at which
it is offered for sale to the public, and which is held
by--
(A) a taxpayer who so received such
publication, or
(B) a taxpayer in whose hands the basis of
such publication is determined, for purposes of
determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole
or in part by reference to the basis of such
publication in the hands of a taxpayer described
in subparagraph (A).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011