16
Property Transactions: Capital Gains and Losses
Solutions to Tax Research Problems
16-57 The controlling question is whether a geographical limitation on the exploitation
of a patent is a substantial right. According to the cases cited, it is. Therefore, if
such a limit is imposed capital gain treatment that might be available under §
1235 cannot be preserved.
One way of handling this problem has been to transfer all rights to the patent,
giving the transferee the right to sublease the patent in certain geographic areas,
the transferor having the right to refuse any potential sublessee (e.g., giving the
transferee exclusive rights east of the Rockies and the right to sublease west of the
Rockies, with sublessees subject to G’s approval). This retained right has not been
considered substantial.
Kueneman v. Comm., 628 F.2d 1196 (CA-9, 1980), involved a situation
similar to that stated in the problem, and capital gain treatment was denied. A
similar result was reached in Klein Estate v. Comm., 507 F.2d 617 (CA-7, 1974).
In Rouverol, 42 T.C. 186 (1964) (N.Acq., 1965-2 CB 7), an inventor
transferred all substantial rights to a U.S. patent. Later, under the agreement, some
of the rights were sublet to another company with Rouverol’s approval. The
ability to approve the transfer was not considered “substantial.” For an earlier case
with a similar result, see Rogers, 51 T.C. 927.
Where a transfer limited the transferee to use of the patent within a single
industry, even though it could be applied in another industry, all substantial rights
were not transferred. [See Fawick v. Comm., 71-1 USTC ¶9147, 27 AFTR2d 71-
381, 436 F.2d 655 (CA-6, 1971).]
16-58 A determination must be made as to whether gain is ordinary income or capital
gain on the sale of real property. This determination depends on the taxpayer’s
primary motivation and takes into account such factors as the frequency and
continuity of sales, the holding period, the taxpayer’s intent, the subdivision of the
property and improvement activities. This question focuses on subdivision and
improvement. [Malat v. Riddell, 66-1 USTC ¶9317, 17 AFTR 2d 604, 383 US
569 (USSC, 1966)].
a. This is the sale of a capital asset and would qualify for long-term capital gain
treatment since there was a long holding period, primarily for appreciation,
and a single sale.
b. Subdividing and improving real estate is one of the many factors in
determining whether the property is held for sale to customers in the ordinary