No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
A. Bruce UMSTEAD and Margaret W. Umstead, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
9194_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1964.
Published opinion
Thomas L. Norris, Jr., Raleigh, N. C. (N. A. Townsend, Jr., and Poyner, Geraghty, Hartsfield & Townsend, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellants., Morton K. Rothschild, Attorney, Department of Justice (Louis F. Oberdor-fer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jacks on and David O. Walter, Attorneys, Department of Justice, William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty., and Roy G. Hall, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Haynsworth, Boreman, Bell.
Published
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decision of the district court sitting without a jury. The question at issue is what part, if any, of the consideration received by the taxpayer for the sale of his interest in a partnership is allocable to good will and, therefore, to be treated as capital gain, and what part is allocable to his covenant not to compete and, therefore, to be treated as ordinary income.
We find substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the district court that 75% of the consideration is allocable to the sale of good will and 25% to the covenant not to compete. Since these findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm. Cf. Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218.
Affirmed.