Court Opinion

ID: 9444821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:13:01.826851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:01.115157
License: Public Domain

LINDLEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting)-
I think the $91,220.94 treated by the Tax Court and by the majority here as “ordinary income” of the taxpayers, was, under the contract of the parties, the income of Kungsholm, the purchaser, and not that of the vendors. It seems clear to me that the only tax liability incurred by the partners was that arising from their capital gain in their sale of assets. This conclusion is impelled by our decisions in Meyer v. United States, 7 Cir., 213 F.2d 278, and Swiren v. Com’r, 7 Cir., 183 F.2d 656, the reasoning of which I adhere to, and believe to be applicable to and decisive of this case.
I would reverse.