The case is frequently cited in American law school textbooks as an example of the nuances of income taxation.

[1] On October 18, 1965, the couple filed an amended return, eliminating $4,467.00 from the gross income computation and requesting a refund of $836.51.

6501[3] had elapsed; and (3) If the money is gross income in 1964, then plaintiffs are entitled to capital gains treatment under Section 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code.

First, an IRS Revenue Ruling states, “the finder of treasure trove is in receipt of taxable income, for Federal income tax purposes, to the extent of its value in United States currency, for the taxable year in which it is reduced to undisputed possession.”[5] Second, numerous Supreme Court cases recognize the broad sweeping construction of Section 61(a) found in Treas.

[6] Plaintiffs were unable to point to any inconsistencies between the gross income sections of the Code, the interpretation of them by the regulations and the courts, and the revenue rulings.

[7] Ohio does not have a statute dealing with the rights of owners and finders of treasure trove, thus the English common-law rule applies.

Cesarini alerts taxpayers to the notion that many things may constitute gross income even though they are not explicitly identified in the Tax Code.