$40M From Pharma Inventor's Licensing Contracts Is Taxable as Income, Not Capital Gain
Millions of dollars a pharmaceutical inventor received under a technology license agreement should be treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gains, for tax purposes, a split federal appeals panel has ruled.
March 26, 2018 at 04:21 PM
3 minute read
Photo Credit: James Steidl
Millions of dollars a pharmaceutical inventor received under a technology license agreement should be treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gains, for tax purposes, a split federal appeals panel has ruled.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Monday that Dr. Spiridon Spireas, who developed a “liquisolid” application of a successful blood pressure drug, could not claim the more favorable tax treatment because the licensing agreement at issue did not include a transfer of all property rights. The decision affirmed a ruling of the Tax Court that determined the $40 million Spireas received under the agreement was not eligible for capital gains treatment.
According to Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, who wrote the court's precedential decision, Spireas initially argued that he transferred all his property rights regarding the blood pressure medication felodipine after the drug was created in 2000. However, Hardiman said, on appeal Spireas contended that he transferred his rights in 1998 under a much broader licensing agreement with Mutual Pharmaceuticals to begin adapting “liquisolid” versions of medications.
Hardiman ultimately determined that, based on recent precedent regarding waiver, Spireas had abandoned any argument that he transferred his rights in the 1998 agreement, and further that Spireas could not have transferred the rights under the broader licensing agreement, because his concept of creating a liquisolid version of felodipine haven't yet moved into actual practice.
“Because that was at least two years before the invention of the felodipine formulation, Spireas' current position cannot depend on the legal standard for reduction to actual practice to establish that he held a property right at the time of transfer,” Hardiman said.
Judge Jane Roth said in a dissent that the majority misunderstood Spireas' argument by confusing the legal transfer of rights with the physical transfer of the specific felodipine formulation.
“Undoubtedly, Spireas' trial counsel could have used more precise language to distinguish between the legal transfer of rights and the physical transfer of the formulation,” Roth said. “But, under this court's precedents, that mistake alone provides an insufficient basis to find that Spireas has waived his argument on appeal.”
According to Hardiman, Spireas invented liquisolid technology, which is a formulation for medications that allows the body to absorb water-insoluble molecules. The technology, however, must be adapted for each individual medication, which requires a lot of testing and development, Hardiman said.
In 1998, Spireas entered into an agreement with Mutual Pharmaceuticals licensing the technology generally, and granting the company the rights to make and sell the specific products. In 2000, Spireas also entered into an engagement letter with Mutual to develop a liquisolid version of felodipine.
Over two years, Spireas earned $40 million under the agreement regarding felodipine. He paid 15 percent of that in taxes, claiming that it counted as capital gains. However, the Tax Court determined the money was ordinary income, and he owed 35 percent—which was $5.8 million more than he paid.
Bryan Killian of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius argued before the Third Circuit on behalf of Spireas, and Clint Carpenter argued for the U.S. Department of Justice. Killian declined to comment.
A spokeswoman with the DOJ declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
3 minute readPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250