U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1961

John W. Rogers and Creta B. Rogers v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 3, 1961 · Stephens, Chambers, Hamley

290 F.2d 501; 7 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1318; 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4924 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Eli Grubie, of Grubic, Drendel & Bradley, Reno, Nev., for appellants., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Meyer Rothwacks and Douglas A. Kahn, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Howard W. Babcock, U. S. Atty., and Chester C. Swobe, Asst. U. S. Atty., Reno, Nev., Kenneth E. Levin, Atty. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.

Charles W. Balthrope and Mary v. Balthrope v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1966)
Harrah v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1978)
Levinson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1966)
Danielson v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1965)
Annabelle Candy Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1962)
Barran v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1962)
Pacific Rock & Gravel Co., a Corporation v. United States (9th Cir. 1961)
Ehlert v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1985)
Carl E. Mathena and Helen B. Mathena, and v. United States (9th Cir. 1971)
Harlan E. Baxter and Imogene Baxter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Lovell J. Proby and Eva M. Proby v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1970)
Estate of Rogers v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1970)
Commissioner v. Danielson (3d Cir. 1967)
The Coca-Cola Company, a Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1966)
Emmette L. Barran and Martha Barran v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1964)
Lichtman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1964)
Yandell v. United States (District Court, D. Oregon 1962)
Schulz v. Commissioner (9th Cir. 1961)

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in that its findings on the facts are not clearly erroneous.

The taxpayers probably have been maneuvered by their purchaser into a big tax disadvantage. But, when in their second option, they agreed in writing after negotiation to the assignment of some |60,900 as consideration for a covenant not to compete, the trial court could refuse to go behind the agreement and uphold the commissioner in treating the sum as ordinary income. We find Hamlin’s Trust v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 209 F.2d 761, pertinent and a case that should be followed here.

Had there been any equivocation or any confusion as to what was done, then taxpayers would have had a far different case. Third parties may question the resolutions of parties to a contract, but in the absence of fraud it is not ordinarily open to the bargainers to do so. Cf. Gray v. Powell, 314 U.S. 402, 414, 62 S.Ct. 326, 86 L.Ed. 301.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.