The Spangler court’s focus on the "gist of the controversy,” and its corresponding decision not to allocate between capital and ordinary expenses, is consistent with the approach suggested by Dye in the present case. However, the Spangler case was decided before the Supreme Court’s seminal decisions in Woodward v. Commissioner, 397 U.S. 572, 90 S.Ct. 1302, 25 L.Ed.2d 577 (1970) and United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 397 U.S. 580, 90 S.Ct. 1307, 25 L.Ed.2d 585 (1970), and, to the extent that it eschewed allocation, it has not been followed by any circuit court subsequent to those decisions. In any event, to the extent that Spangler conflicts with our decision in Dolese v. U.S., 605 F.2d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 961, 100 S.Ct. 1647, 64 L.Ed.2d 236 (1980) (<HOLDING>), we are bound by Dolese. 10 . When the suit is
holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured holding that state may charge separately for the same offense but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand holding that where litigation involves more than one claim the origin of the claim test must be applied separately to each part holding that the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof  which is the subject of litigation holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim