Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. José Ferrer
1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903, 304 F.2d 125, 9 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1651 (1962)
Rule of Law:
When a taxpayer receives payment for surrendering a 'bundle of rights' under a contract, the payment must be allocated between capital gain and ordinary income based on whether each specific right constitutes an 'estate' or 'encumbrance' on property (capital asset) or merely a right to future ordinary income or personal services.
Facts:
- In 1950, Pierre LaMure published the novel “Moulin Rouge” and subsequently wrote a play, “Monsieur Toulouse,” based on the novel.
- On November 1, 1951, LaMure and actor José Ferrer entered into a Dramatic Production Contract, leasing to Ferrer the sole and exclusive right to produce “Monsieur Toulouse” on the speaking stage in the United States and Canada.
- The Dramatic Production Contract also granted Ferrer the power to prevent the disposition of motion picture, radio, and television rights until certain conditions were met (e.g., producing the play or specific dates) and entitled him to a 40% share of the proceeds from these rights if he produced the play.
- Late in 1951, director John Huston approached Ferrer about playing the lead role in a motion picture based on “Moulin Rouge,” leading Ferrer to express willingness to abandon the stage production if recompensed.
- Huston's attorney insisted that Ferrer's Dramatic Production Contract be annulled or conveyed before the motion picture could proceed, as it 'clouded' the motion picture rights.
- On May 7, 1952, Ferrer entered into a Motion Picture Contract with Moulin Productions, Inc. (Huston's company) to act in the film, which included a fixed salary and additional 'percentage compensation' from net profits.
- Ferrer then delivered a letter, dated February 7, 1952, canceling his Dramatic Production Contract with LaMure, clearing the way for LaMure to sell the motion picture rights to Huston's company.
- Ferrer's agent and Huston's attorney testified that the 'percentage compensation' in the Motion Picture Contract was specifically understood to be consideration for Ferrer's surrender of his rights under the Dramatic Production Contract, distinct from his acting salary.
Procedural Posture:
- José Ferrer reported certain percentage payments from a motion picture contract as long-term capital gain on his 1953 federal income tax return.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency, asserting that these percentage payments constituted ordinary income.
- Ferrer petitioned the United States Tax Court, which annulled the Commissioner's determination, finding that the payments were for the sale or exchange of a capital asset.
- The Commissioner appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does compensation received by an actor for surrendering a dramatic production contract, which included rights to produce a play, the power to prevent disposition of motion picture rights, and a share of future proceeds from those rights, qualify entirely as long-term capital gain, or is some portion of it ordinary income?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, Circuit Judge
No, not entirely. The payments received by Ferrer for surrendering his rights under the Dramatic Production Contract must be allocated, as some aspects qualify for capital gain treatment while others constitute ordinary income. The court distinguished between rights that represent an 'estate' in or an 'encumbrance' on property, which can be capital assets, and those that merely provide an opportunity to earn future ordinary income. Ferrer's rights were analyzed as a 'bundle of rights' with three components. First, the surrender of his 'lease' of the play, which granted him exclusive production rights, was deemed a capital asset, analogous to a lessee's surrender of real property leasehold interest, which is supported by precedent (e.g., Golonsky, McCue Bros. & Drummond) and Section 1241 of the 1954 Code. This right constituted an 'equitable interest' in the copyright of the play and did not fall under the 'personal efforts' exclusion for creative works. Second, Ferrer's 'negative power' to prevent disposition of the motion picture, radio, and television rights until the play was produced was also found to be a capital asset, as it 'clouded' LaMure’s title and was akin to relinquishing a restrictive covenant (e.g., Ray). Third, Ferrer's right to receive 40% of the proceeds from the motion picture and other rights if he produced the play was considered ordinary income. The contract explicitly stated that LaMure retained 'complete title' to these rights, and Ferrer had 'no right, title or interest, legal or equitable,' other than to receive a share of proceeds. This represented a contingent right to future income, which, if realized, would be ordinary income, and therefore its surrender for a lump sum also results in ordinary income (e.g., Hort, Holt). The court affirmed the Tax Court's finding that the percentage compensation was not for Ferrer's acting services, but for the release of his contractual rights. Since a single transaction involved both capital assets and ordinary income rights, the court concluded that allocation of the compensation was required.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for clarifying the tax treatment of payments for complex contractual rights, especially in the context of intellectual property. It establishes that a single transaction involving the surrender of a 'bundle of rights' may require an allocation of payment between capital gains and ordinary income, rather than an all-or-nothing approach. The ruling refined the distinction between an 'estate' or 'encumbrance' on property, which qualifies for capital gain treatment, and a mere contractual right to future income, which does not. It also moved away from formalistic distinctions regarding whether rights are 'sold' or 'released,' emphasizing the substance of the transaction. This principle is crucial for structuring transactions involving licenses, options, and other contingent interests in property, requiring careful consideration of how rights are defined in contracts to achieve specific tax outcomes.
