¶1dissenting:
¶21. As to those contracts for future services mider which the entire contract price had not been prepaid either by cash or notes, and under which certain payments were not due to be made until a subsequent taxable year, I agree with the views expressed by Judge Train in his dissenting opinion. Such contracts were executory as to both parties; and the obligations to make the future payments thereunder had not matured, so as to become true accounts receivable, at the times when the contracts were executed. In such situation, I think there is no more justification for accruing the future contract payments as income of the year in which the contracts were executed, than there would be for accruing as income at the time a lease is executed, all rental payments contracted to be made in subsequent years under such lease. The fact that a contract for future services, or a lease for future use of property, may be legally enforcible is not in itself justification for accruing as income of the year in which the instrument is executed, all payments to be made thereunder in future years.
¶32. Even as to those contracts for future services upon which prepayment had been made, I think this Court has erred in refusing to permit the taxpayer to spread the income over the periods in which such income was to be earned, in accordance with sound business accounting practices. On the basis of the authorities and reasons which I have heretofore set forth in my dissenting opinion in the case of Automobile Club of New York, Inc., 32 T.C. 906, I think that such action of the Court not only defeats a true reflection of income, but also is out of harmony with the weight and trend of Courts of Appeals authority.