James, Jr. And Glenna Salome v. United States
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Blaine v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1975)
- Rost v. United States (District Court, S.D. Texas 1973)
- Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant-Cross (5th Cir. 1973)
- W. Thcker Blaine, Sr. v. United States (5th Cir. 1971)
- AmSouth Bancorporation and Subsidiaries v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1988)
- Stewart v. United States (District Court, N.D. Texas 1974)
- Ralph W. Fullerton Co. v. United States (District Court, D. Oregon 1974)
- S. S. Ballin Agency, Inc. v. Commissioner (3d Cir. 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In 1961 taxpayers purchased a fire, casualty, and automobile insurance agency. The sole question raised by this appeal is whether the insurance renewals for which the parties to the purchase and sale allocated $11,775 of the price are amortizable assets. In holding for the Commissioner on motion for summary judgment, the district court answered this question in the negative.
To qualify intangible property for amortization, taxpayers had the burden of establishing that it was of use-in the business for only a limited time and that the length of this period was estimable with reasonable accuracy. Treas.Reg. § 1.167(a)-3 (1956). If they had developed evidence, their task would have been to distinguish the so-called renewals they purchased from the insurance dailies, subscription lists, and expirations involved in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Killian, 5th Cir. 1963, 314 F.2d 852. There the Court held that the dailies, subscription lists, and expirations common to a fire, casualty, and automobile agency are in the nature of goodwill, have an indeterminate life span, and therefore are not subject to a deduction for depreciation. No evidence was presented to the district court to distinguish Killian. Moreover, as the Commissioner pointed out, the purchase contract by its very terms characterized the property in question as goodwill. With the terms of the contract being conclusively in the Commissioner’s favor and taxpayers having adduced no controverting evidence of a limited useful life, the court correctly held the assets not amortizable. Fed.R. Civ.P. Rule 56(e). The judgment is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.