HEIM V. FITZPATRICK
262 F.2d 887 (2nd Cir. 1959)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over patent royalty payments received by a wife,
son and daughter. Heim (P) challenged an order of the District Court, which denied his
motion for summary judgment finding that deficiencies should not be refunded.
FACTS: Heim (P) was an inventor of a rod end and spherical bearing. He applied for a
patent in 1942 and two months later executed a formal written assignment of his invention
and patent rights to the Heim Company. This was duly recorded in the patent office. The
patents were issued in 1946. The assignment to the company was made pursuant to an oral
agreement and was reduced to writing in 1943. P assigned to his wife an undivided 25%
interest in his agreement with the Company in 1943 and similar assignments were made to his
son and daughter. P paid gift taxes on the assignments. The Commissioner determined that the
income received by the assignees should be taxable as income to P.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment