In Uncategorized on 01/13/2021 at 18:36

This old-time basketball play doesn’t help Aaron G. Filler, 2021 T. C. Memo. 6, filed 1/13/21, who tries for a ginormous capital gain based upon the alleged diminution in value of his 75% stockholding (unrealized) in the corporation to which he transferred his patent.

Aaron (that’s Doc Aaron, Esq., to you; doctor, lawyer, entrepreneur, author, inventor, with a CV to wow the judges, except Judge Elizabeth A (“Tex”) Copeland is unimpressed, claims Section 1235 gives him capital gains on the transfer of the patent even with less than a one-year hold, because Congress wanted to play the mother of invention.

Except transfer to a 25% controlled entity means inventors must come up with some other statutory authority, and Doc Aaron doesn’t.

Heavy-duty NOL for carryback-and-forth has to come from realized loss. Doc Aaron is in a trade or business, and his claimed loss would allow NOL carryons, if he realized loss. But all he has is his own calculations of unrealized diminutions.

His trusty CPA, who might get Doc Aaron off the Section 6662 five-and-ten chops, doesn’t testify.

Judge Tex Copeland devotes twenty-plus pages detailing Doc Aaron’s corporate give-and-gos, interspersed with the numerous lawsuits Doc Aaron brought to defend his patent. And he loses them all, just like…but this is a non-political blog.

Among others, he sues UCLA. That’s the Los Angeles branch of California’s State university system, not the University on the Corner of Lexington Avenue, the alma mater of a very wealthy former client.

“…despite the numerous lawsuits involving the … patent, no court has found infringement. Dr. Filler insists that we must decide whether UCLA infringed upon the … patent. But the law is clear–the United States Tax Court is not the proper forum to litigate a patent infringement claim. 35 U.S.C. sec. 281 (2006) (‘A patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.’); 28 U.S.C. sec. 1338(a) (2006) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents[.]”).” 2021 T. C. Memo. 6, at p. 47. (Citations omitted).(Emphasis by the Court).

I can’t end this blogpost without giving Doc Aaron a Taishoff “Good try, with wildcard ribbon.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: