Connection lost
Server error
George Lattera Angeline Lattera v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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: Lottery winners sold their rights to future annual payments for a lump sum. The court held this sum was ordinary income, not capital gain, applying the substitute-for-ordinary-income doctrine.
Legal Significance: This case refines the substitute-for-ordinary-income doctrine, introducing a “family resemblance” test to distinguish ordinary income from capital gains when rights to future income streams are sold, particularly concerning lottery winnings.
George Lattera Angeline Lattera v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1991, George and Angeline Lattera won $9,595,326 in the Pennsylvania Lottery, payable in 26 annual installments of $369,051, as a lump-sum option was unavailable. In 1999, after receiving several installments, the Latteras sold their rights to the 17 remaining lottery payments to Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC for a lump sum of $3,372,342. On their joint tax return, they reported this amount as a long-term capital gain, with a zero basis. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined the proceeds were ordinary income and issued a notice of deficiency for $660,784. The Latteras petitioned the Tax Court, which upheld the Commissioner’s determination. The Latteras appealed, arguing the sale of their right to future lottery payments constituted the sale of a capital asset.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a lump-sum payment received for the sale of a taxpayer’s right to future lottery installments taxable as ordinary income or as capital gain?
The lump-sum payment received by the Latteras for their remaining lottery installments 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a lump-sum payment received for the sale of a taxpayer’s right to future lottery installments taxable as ordinary income or as capital gain?
Conclusion
This case provides a refined analytical framework, the "family resemblance" test, for 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 no
Legal Rule
Lump-sum consideration that is essentially 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 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 exerc
Legal Analysis
The court, while agreeing with the outcome of *United States v. Maginnis*, 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 pa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: A lump-sum payment for the right to future lottery winnings