## Facts

- Herman M. Hale and other individuals (and their spouses filing joint returns) were partners in The Hale Company (Hale Co.), a partnership involved in real estate projects.
- Hale Co. purchased a tract of land and then joined with a construction company and another individual to form The Walnut Company, Ltd. (Walnut), a partnership organized to subdivide the tract, build residential houses, and sell the completed homes.
- Walnut’s partnership agreement contemplated that Walnut would dissolve after all homes were sold.
- Hale Co. did not receive a conventional fee for its role. Instead, in exchange for agreeing to provide future services to Walnut, Hale Co. received a right to participate as a partner in Walnut’s future profits.
- By the time of the transaction at issue, Walnut had built 111 houses and had deposits or purchase agreements from 39 buyers, but Walnut had not yet realized profits or made profit distributions.
- At that stage, the parties could reasonably estimate expected profit on each house, but they could not predict with certainty how many houses would sell or when sales would close.
- Hale Co. sold 90% of its partnership interest in Walnut to D-K Investment Corporation (D-K) for $125,000, transferring to D-K 90% of Hale Co.’s right to share in Walnut’s future profits.
- The taxpayers reported their distributive shares of the $125,000 as capital gain, treating the transaction as a sale of a partnership interest.
- The Commissioner issued notices of deficiency for the relevant tax years, asserting that the proceeds were ordinary income rather than capital gain. The taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court, and the related cases were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether the $125,000 received from selling 90% of Hale Co.’s interest in Walnut—an interest acquired in exchange for future services and consisting primarily of a right to share in future profits—was capital gain from the sale of a partnership interest or ordinary income as a substitute for compensation and future ordinary income.

## Decision

- The Tax Court held that the $125,000 was ordinary income, not capital gain.
- The court treated the transaction as a sale of the right to receive future income attributable to services, paid in a present lump sum, rather than a disposition of a capital-type partnership investment.
- The court sustained the Commissioner’s characterization of the proceeds as ordinary income (subject to any computational adjustments in the consolidated deficiency determinations).

## Legal Principles

- A taxpayer generally cannot convert future ordinary income into capital gain by transferring the right to receive that income for a lump-sum payment.
- In determining tax character, the court looks to the substance of what was transferred. Labeling the transfer as a sale of a “partnership interest” does not control when the interest was effectively a service-earned right to future profits and functioned as a substitute for compensation.
- When a partnership interest is received primarily for services and represents a right to future income from those services, a later sale of that right before profits are realized may be treated as ordinary income rather than capital gain.

## Conclusion

In *Hale v. Commissioner*, the Tax Court concluded that Hale Co.’s pre-profit sale of 90% of its Walnut interest for $125,000 was, in substance, a lump-sum transfer of the right to future service-related income, so the proceeds were taxable as ordinary income rather than capital gain from the sale of a partnership interest.


Hale v. Commissioner, 24 T.C.M. 1497 (1965)