Philip Long v. Commissioner of IRS Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A real estate developer sold his court-ordered right to purchase land for a development project. The court held that the $5.75 million payment he received was a long-term capital gain, not ordinary income, because he sold the opportunity to earn future profits, not a right to already-earned income.
Legal Significance: This case refines the “substitute for ordinary income” doctrine, establishing that selling a right to earn future, undetermined income through a risky venture constitutes the sale of a capital asset, distinct from selling a right to receive a stream of earned income.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Philip Long, a real estate developer, operated a company (LOTC) to build a luxury condominium. LOTC entered into an agreement (the Riverside Agreement) to purchase land from LORH. When LORH unilaterally terminated the contract, LOTC sued for specific performance and won a judgment ordering LORH to sell the land. While the judgment was on appeal, Long entered into an Assignment Agreement, selling his position as the plaintiff—and thus the exclusive right to purchase the land under the court order—to a third party for $5.75 million. Long had held the contractual right to purchase the land for over a year. From the proceeds, Long paid $600,000 to Steelervest, Inc. to satisfy an obligation from a prior, unrelated business deal. The IRS determined the entire $5.75 million was ordinary income and that the $600,000 payment was a non-deductible loan repayment. The Tax Court affirmed the IRS’s determination, reasoning that Long intended to sell the land to customers in the ordinary course of business.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Do the proceeds from the sale of a judgment granting the exclusive right to purchase and develop real property constitute a long-term capital gain or ordinary income under the substitute for ordinary income doctrine?
Reversed in part. The profit from the $5.75 million payment is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Do the proceeds from the sale of a judgment granting the exclusive right to purchase and develop real property constitute a long-term capital gain or ordinary income under the substitute for ordinary income doctrine?
Conclusion
This case provides a significant limitation on the substitute for ordinary income Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Legal Rule
A lump-sum payment that is a substitute for what would otherwise be Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
Legal Analysis
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court's characterization of the income, finding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Proceeds from selling a judgment for specific performance of a land