Tax Cases

G.R. No.
L-17518
1/9/2014
Today is Thursday, January 09, 2014
powered by
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17518

vs.
October 30, 1922
FREDERICK C. FISHER, plaintiff-appellant, WENCESLAO TRINIDAD, Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee. Fisher and De Witt and Antonio M. Opisso for appellants. Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee. JOHNSON, J.:
The only question presented by this appeal is: Are the "stock dividends" in the present case "income" and taxable as such under the provisions of section 25 of Act No. 2833? While the appellant presents other important questions, under the view which we have taken of the facts and the law applicable to the present case, we deem it unnecessary to discuss them now. The defendant demurred to the petition in the lower court. The facts are therefore admitted. They are simple and may be stated as follows: That during the year 1919 the Philippine American Drug Company was a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands, doing business in the City of Manila; that he appellant was a stockholder in said corporation; that said corporation, as result of the business for that year, declared a "stock dividend"; that the proportionate share of said stock divided of the appellant was P24,800; that the stock dividend for that amount was issued to the appellant; that thereafter, in the month of March, 1920, the appellant, upon demand of the appellee, paid under protest, and voluntarily, unto the appellee the sum of P889.91 as income tax on said stock dividend. For the recovery of that sum (P889.91) the present action was instituted. The defendant demurred to the petition upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the plaintiff appealed. To sustain his appeal the appellant cites and relies on some decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States as will as the decisions of the supreme court of some of the states of the Union, in which the questions before us, based upon similar statutes, was discussed. Among the most important decisions may be mentioned the following: Towne vs. Eisner, 245 U.S., 418; Doyle vs. Mitchell Bors. Co., 247 U.S., 179; Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S., 189; Dekoven vs Alsop, 205 Ill., 309; 63 L.R.A., 587; Kaufman vs. Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 93 Va., 673. In each of said cases an effort was made to collect an "income tax" upon "stock dividends" and in each case it was held that "stock dividends" were capital and not an "income" and therefore not subject to the "income tax" law. The appellee admits the doctrine established in the case of Eisner vs. Macomber (252 U.S., 189) that a "stock dividend" is not "income" but argues that said Act No. 2833, in imposing the tax on the stock dividend, does not violate the provisions of the Jones Law. The appellee further argues that the statute of the United States providing for tax upon stock dividends is different from the statute of the Philippine Islands, and therefore the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States should not be followed in interpreting the statute in force here. For the purpose of ascertaining the difference in the said statutes ( (United States and Philippine Islands), providing for an income tax in the United States as well as that in the Philippine Islands, the two statutes are here quoted for the purpose of determining the difference, if any, in the language of the two statutes. Chapter 463 of an Act of Congress of September 8, 1916, in its title 1 provides for the collection of an "income tax." Section 2 of said Act attempts to define what is an income. The definition follows: That the term "dividends" as used in this title shall be held to mean any distribution made or ordered to made by a corporation, . . . which stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/oct1922/gr_l-17518_1922.html
1 / 41
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
Act No. 2833 of the Philippine Legislature is an Act establishing "an income tax." Section 25 of said Act attempts to define the application of the income tax. The definition follows: The term "dividends" as used in this Law shall be held to mean any distribution made or ordered to be made by a corporation, . . . out of its earnings or profits accrued since March first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and payable to its shareholders, whether in cash or in stock of the corporation, . . . . Stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed. It will be noted from a reading of the provisions of the two laws above quoted that the writer of the law of the Philippine Islands must have had before him the statute of the United States. No important argument can be based upon the slight different in the wording of the two sections. It is further argued by the appellee that there are no constitutional limitations upon the power of the Philippine Legislature such as exist in the United States, and in support of that contention, he cites a number of decisions. There is no question that the Philippine Legislature may provide for the payment of an income tax, but it cannot, under the guise of an income tax, collect a tax on property which is not an "income." The Philippine Legislature can not impose a tax upon "property" under a law which provides for a tax upon "income" only. The Philippine Legislature has no power to provide a tax upon "automobiles" only, and under that law collect a tax upon a carreton or bull cart. Constitutional limitations, that is to say, a statute expressly adopted for one purpose cannot, without amendment, be applied to another purpose which is entirely distinct and different. A statute providing for an income tax cannot be construed to cover property which is not, in fact income. The Legislature cannot, by a statutory declaration, change the real nature of a tax which it imposes. A law which imposes an important tax on rice only cannot be construed to an impose an importation tax on corn. It is true that the statute in question provides for an income tax and contains a further provision that "stock dividends" shall be considered income and are therefore subject to income tax provided for in said law. If "stock dividends" are not "income" then the law permits a tax upon something not within the purpose and intent of the law. It becomes necessary in this connection to ascertain what is an "income in order that we may be able to determine whether "stock dividends" are "income" in the sense that the word is used in the statute. Perhaps it would be more logical to determine first what are "stock dividends" in order that we may more clearly understand their relation to "income." Generally speaking, stock dividends represent undistributed increase in the capital of corporations or firms, joint stock companies, etc., etc., for a particular period. They are used to show the increased interest or proportional shares in the capital of each stockholder. In other words, the inventory of the property of the corporation, etc., for particular period shows an increase in its capital, so that the stock theretofore issued does not show the real value of the stockholder's interest, and additional stock is issued showing the increase in the actual capital, or property, or assets of the corporation, etc. To illustrate: A and B form a corporation with an authorized capital of P10,000 for the purpose of opening and conducting a drug store, with assets of the value of P2,000, and each contributes P1,000. Their entire assets are invested in drugs and put upon the shelves in their place of business. They commence business without a cent in the treasury. Every dollar contributed is invested. Shares of stock to the amount of P1,000 are issued to each of the incorporators, which represent the actual investment and entire assets of the corporation. Business for the first year is good. Merchandise is sold, and purchased, to meet the demands of the growing trade. At the end of the first year an inventory of the assets of the corporation is made, and it is then ascertained that the assets or capital of the corporation on hand amount to P4,000, with no debts, and still not a cent in the treasury. All of the receipts during the year have been reinvested in the business. Neither of the stockholders have withdrawn a penny from the business during the year. Every peso received for the sale of merchandise was immediately used in the purchase of new stock new supplies. At the close of the year there is not a centavo in the treasury, with which either A or B could buy a cup of coffee or a pair of shoes for his family. At the beginning of the year they were P2,000, and at the end of the year they were P4,000, and neither of the stockholders have received a centavo from the business during the year. At the close of the year, when it is discovered that the assets are P4,000 and not P2,000, instead of selling the extra merchandise on hand and thereby reducing the business to its original capital, they agree among themselves to increase the capital they agree among themselves to increase the capital issued and for that purpose issue additional stock in the form of "stock dividends" or additional stock of P1,000 each, which represents the actual increase of the shares of interest in the business. At the beginning of the year each stockholder held one-half interest in the capital. At the close of the year, and after the issue of the said stock dividends, they each still have one-half interest in the business. The capital of the corporation increased during the year, but has either of them received an income? It is not denied, for the purpose of ordinary taxation, that the taxable property of the corporation at the beginning of the year was P2,000, that at the close of the year it was P4,000, and that the tax rolls should be changed in accordance with the changed conditions in the business. In other words, the ordinary tax should be increased by P2,000. Another illustration: C and D organized a corporation for agricultural purposes with an authorized capital stock of P20,000 each contributing P5,000. With that capital they purchased a farm and, with it, one hundred head of cattle. Every peso contributed is invested. There is no money in the treasury. Much time
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/oct1922/gr_l-17518_1922.html 2 / 41
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
and labor was expanded during the year by the stockholders on the farm in the way of improvements. Neither received a centavo during the year from the farm or the cattle. At the beginning of the year the assets of the corporation, including the farm and the cattle, were P10,000, and at the close of the year and inventory of the property of the corporation is made and it is then found that they have the same farm with its improvements and two hundred head of cattle by natural increase. At the end of the year it is also discovered that, by reason of business changes, the farm and the cattle both have increased in value, and that the value of the corporate property is now P20,000 instead of P10,000 as it was at the beginning of the year. The incorporators instead of reducing the property to its original capital, by selling off a part of its, issue to themselves "stock dividends" to represent the proportional value or interest of each of the stockholders in the increased capital at the close of the year. There is still not a centavo in the treasury and neither has withdrawn a peso from the business during the year. No part of the farm or cattle has been sold and not a single peso was received out of the rents or profits of the capital of the corporation by the stockholders. Another illustration: A, an individual farmer, buys a farm with one hundred head of cattle for the sum of P10,000. At the end of the first year, by reason of business conditions and the increase of the value of both real estate and personal property, it is discovered that the value of the farm and the cattle is P20,000. A, during the year, has received nothing from the farm or the cattle. His books at the beginning of the year show that he had property of the value of P10,000. His books at the close of the year show that he has property of the value of P20,000. A is not a corporation. The assets of his business are not shown therefore by certificates of stock. His books, however, show that the value of his property has increased during the year by P10,000, under any theory of business or law, be regarded as an "income" upon which the farmer can be required to pay an income tax? Is there any difference in law in the condition of A in this illustration and the condition of A and B in the immediately preceding illustration? Can the increase of the value of the property in either case be regarded as an "income" and be subjected to the payment of the income tax under the law? Each of the foregoing illustrations, it is asserted, is analogous to the case before us and, in view of that fact, let us ascertain how lexicographers and the courts have defined an "income." The New Standard Dictionary, edition of 1915, defines an income as " the amount of money coming to a person or corporation within a specified time whether as payment or corporation within a specified time whether as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment." Webster's International Dictionary defines an income as "the receipt, salary; especially, the annual receipts of a private person or a corporation from property." Bouvier, in his law dictionary, says that an "income" in the federal constitution and income tax act, is used in its common or ordinary meaning and not in its technical, or economic sense. (146 Northwestern Reporter, 812) Mr. Black, in his law dictionary, says "An income is the return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profit or private revenue." "An income tax is a tax on the yearly profits arising from property , professions, trades, and offices." The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case o Gray vs. Darlington (82 U.S., 653), said in speaking of income that mere advance in value in no sense constitutes the "income" specified in the revenue law as "income" of the owner for the year in which the sale of the property was made. Such advance constitutes and can be treated merely as an increase of capital. (In re Graham's Estate, 198 Pa., 216; Appeal of Braun, 105 Pa., 414.) Mr. Justice Hughes, later Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and now Secretary of State of the United States, in his argument before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Towne vs. Eisner, supra, defined an "income" in an income tax law, unless it is otherwise specified, to mean cash or its equivalent. It does not mean choses in action or unrealized increments in the value of the property, and cites in support of the definition, the definition given by the Supreme Court in the case of Gray vs. Darlington, supra. In the case of Towne vs. Eisner, supra, Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the court, said: "Notwithstanding the thoughtful discussion that the case received below, we cannot doubt that the dividend was capital as well for the purposes of the Income Tax Law. . . . 'A stock dividend really takes nothing from the property of the corporation, and adds nothing to the interests of the shareholders. Its property is not diminished and their interest are not increased. . . . The proportional interest of each shareholder remains the same. . . .' In short, the corporation is no poorer and the stockholder is no richer then they were before." (Gibbons vs. Mahon, 136 U.S., 549, 559, 560; Logan County vs. U.S., 169 U.S., 255, 261). In the case of Doyle vs. Mitchell Bros. Co. (247 U.S., 179, Mr. Justice Pitney, speaking for the court, said that the act employs the term "income" in its natural and obvious sense, as importing something distinct from principal or capital and conveying the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activity. Mr. Justice Pitney, in the case of Eisner vs. Macomber (252 U.S., 189), again speaking for the court said: "An income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets." For bookkeeping purposes, when stock dividends are declared, the corporation or company acknowledges a liability, in form, to the stockholders, equivalent to the aggregate par value of their stock, evidenced by a "capital stock account." If profits have been made by the corporation during a particular period and not divided, they create additional bookkeeping liabilities under the head of "profit and loss,"
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
"undivided profits," "surplus account," etc., or the like. None of these, however, gives to the stockholders as a body, much less to any one of them, either a claim against the going concern or corporation, for any particular sum of money, or a right to any particular portion of the asset, or any shares sells or until the directors conclude that dividends shall be made a part of the company's assets segregated from the common fund for that purpose. The dividend normally is payable in money and when so paid, then only does the stockholder realize a profit or gain, which becomes his separate property, and thus derive an income from the capital that he has invested. Until that, is done the increased assets belong to the corporation and not to the individual stockholders. When a corporation or company issues "stock dividends" it shows that the company's accumulated profits have been capitalized, instead of distributed to the stockholders or retained as surplus available for distribution, in money or in kind, should opportunity offer. Far from being a realization of profits of the stockholder, it tends rather to postpone said realization, in that the fund represented by the new stock has been transferred from surplus to assets, and no longer is available for actual distribution. The essential and controlling fact is that the stockholder has received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit; on the contrary, every dollar of his original investment, together with whatever accretions and accumulations resulting from employment of his money and that of the other stockholders in the business of the company, still remains the property of the company, and subject to business risks which may result in wiping out of the entire investment. Having regard to the very truth of the matter, to substance and not to form, the stockholder by virtue of the stock dividend has in fact received nothing that answers the definition of an "income." (Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S., 189, 209, 211.) The stockholder who receives a stock dividend has received nothing but a representation of his increased interest in the capital of the corporation. There has been no separation or segregation of his interest. All the property or capital of the corporation still belongs to the corporation. There has been no separation of the interest of the stockholder from the general capital of the corporation. The stockholder, by virtue of the stock dividend, has no separate or individual control over the interest represented thereby, further than he had before the stock dividend was issued. He cannot use it for the reason that it is still the property of the corporation and not the property of the individual holder of stock dividend. A certificate of stock represented by the stock dividend is simply a statement of his proportional interest or participation in the capital of the corporation. For bookkeeping purposes, a corporation, by issuing stock dividend, acknowledges a liability in form to the stockholders, evidenced by a capital stock account. The receipt of a stock dividend in no way increases the money received of a stockholder nor his cash account at the close of the year. It simply shows that there has been an increase in the amount of the capital of the corporation during the particular period, which may be due to an increased business or to a natural increase of the value of the capital due to business, economic, or other reasons. We believe that the Legislature, when it provided for an "income tax," intended to tax only the "income" of corporations, firms or individuals, as that term is generally used in its common acceptation; that is that the income means money received, coming to a person or corporation for services, interest, or profit from investments. We do not believe that the Legislature intended that a mere increase in the value of the capital or assets of a corporation, firm, or individual, should be taxed as "income." Such property can be reached under the ordinary from of taxation. Mr. Justice Pitney, in the case of the Einer vs. Macomber, supra, said in discussing the difference between "capital" and "income": "That the fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs; the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time." It may be argued that a stockholder might sell the stock dividend which he had acquired. If he does, then he has received, in fact, an income and such income, like any other profit which he realizes from the business, is an income and he may be taxed thereon. There is a clear distinction between an extraordinary cash dividend, no matter when earned, and stock dividends declared, as in the present case. The one is a disbursement to the stockholder of accumulated earnings, and the corporation at once parts irrevocably with all interest thereon. The other involves no disbursement by the corporation. It parts with nothing to the stockholder. The latter receives, not an actual dividend, but certificate of stock which simply evidences his interest in the entire capital, including such as by investment of accumulated profits has been added to the original capital. They are not income to him, but represent additions to the source of his income, namely, his invested capital. (DeKoven vs. Alsop, 205, Ill., 309; 63 L.R.A. 587). Such a person is in the same position, so far as his income is concerned, as the owner of young domestic animal, one year old at the beginning of the year, which is worth P50 and, which, at the end of the year, and by reason of its growth, is worth P100. The value of his property has increased, but has had an income during the year? It is true that he had taxable property at the beginning of the year of the value of P50, and the same taxable property at another period, of the value of P100, but he has had no income in the common acceptation of that word. The increase in the value of the property should be taken account of on the tax duplicate for the purposes of ordinary taxation, but not as income for he has had none. The question whether stock dividends are income, or capital, or assets has frequently come before the courts in another form in cases of inheritance. A is a stockholder in a large corporation. He dies leaving a will by the terms of which he give to B during his lifetime the "income" from said stock, with a further provision that C shall, at B's death, become the owner of his share in the corporation. During B's life the corporation issues a stock dividend. Does the stock dividend belong to B as an income, or does
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
it finally belong to C as a part of his share in the capital or assets of the corporation, which had been left to him as a remainder by A? While there has been some difference of opinion on that question, we believe that a great weight of authorities hold that the stock dividend is capital or assets belonging to C and not an income belonging to B. In the case of D'Ooge vs. Leeds (176 Mass., 558, 560) it was held that stock dividends in such cases were regarded as capital and not as income (Gibbons vs. Mahon, 136 U.S., 549.) In the case of Gibbson vs. Mahon, supra, Mr. Justice Gray said: "The distinction between the title of a corporation, and the interest of its members or stockholders in the property of the corporation, is familiar and well settled. The ownership of that property is in the corporation, and not in the holders of shares of its stock. The interest of each stockholder consists in the right to a proportionate part of the profits whenever dividends are declared by the corporation, during its existence, under its charter, and to a like proportion of the property remaining, upon the termination or dissolution of the corporation, after payment of its debts." (Minot vs. Paine, 99 Mass., 101; Greeff vs. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 160 N. Y ., 19.) In the case of Dekoven vs. Alsop (205 Ill ,309, 63 L. R. A. 587) Mr. Justice Wilkin said: "A dividend is defined as a corporate profit set aside, declared, and ordered by the directors to be paid to the stockholders on demand or at a fixed time. Until the dividend is declared, these corporate profits belong to the corporation, not to the stockholders, and are liable for corporate indebtedness. There is a clear distinction between an extraordinary cash dividend, no matter when earned, and stock dividends declared. The one is a disbursement to the stockholders of accumulated earning, and the corporation at once parts irrevocably with all interest thereon. The other involves no disbursement by the corporation. It parts with nothing to the stockholders. The latter receives, not an actual dividend, but certificates of stock which evidence in a new proportion his interest in the entire capital. When a cash becomes the absolute property of the stockholders and cannot be reached by the creditors of the corporation in the absence of fraud. A stock dividend however, still being the property of the corporation and not the stockholder, it may be reached by an execution against the corporation, and sold as a part of the property of the corporation. In such a case, if all the property of the corporation is sold, then the stockholder certainly could not be charged with having received an income by virtue of the issuance of the stock dividend. Until the dividend is declared and paid, the corporate profits still belong to the corporation, not to the stockholders, and are liable for corporate indebtedness. The rule is well established that cash dividend, whether large or small, are regarded as "income" and all stock dividends, as capital or assets (Cook on Corporation, Chapter 32, secs. 534, 536; Davis vs. Jackson, 152 Mass., 58; Mills vs. Britton, 64 Conn., 4; 5 Am., and Eng. Encycl. of Law, 2d ed., p. 738.) If the ownership of the property represented by a stock dividend is still in the corporation and to in the holder of such stock, then it is difficult to understand how it can be regarded as income to the stockholder and not as a part of the capital or assets of the corporation. (Gibbsons vs. Mahon, supra.) the stockholder has received nothing but a representation of an interest in the property of the corporation and, as a matter of fact, he may never receive anything, depending upon the final outcome of the business of the corporation. The entire assets of the corporation may be consumed by mismanagement, or eaten up by debts and obligations, in which case the holder of the stock dividend will never have received an income from his investment in the corporation. A corporation may be solvent and prosperous today and issue stock dividends in representation of its increased assets, and tomorrow be absolutely insolvent by reason of changes in business conditions, and in such a case the stockholder would have received nothing from his investment. In such a case, if the holder of the stock dividend is required to pay an income tax on the same, the result would be that he has paid a tax upon an income which he never received. Such a conclusion is absolutely contradictory to the idea of an income. An income subject to taxation under the law must be an actual income and not a promised or prospective income. The appelle argues that there is nothing in section 25 of Act No 2833 which contravenes the provisions of the Jones Law. That may be admitted. He further argues that the Act of Congress (U.S. Revenue Act of 1918) expressly authorized the Philippine Legislatures to provide for an income tax. That fact may also be admitted. But a careful reading of that Act will show that, while it permitted a tax upon income, the same provided that income shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services, as well as from interest, rent, dividends, securities, etc. The appellee emphasizes the "income from dividends." Of course, income received as dividends is taxable as an income but an income from "dividends" is a very different thing from receipt of a "stock dividend." One is an actual receipt of profits; the other is a receipt of a representation of the increased value of the assets of corporation. In all of the foregoing argument we have not overlooked the decisions of a few of the courts in different parts of the world, which have reached a different conclusion from the one which we have arrived at in the present case. Inasmuch, however, as appeals may be taken from this court to the Supreme Court of the United States, we feel bound to follow the same doctrine announced by that court. Having reached the conclusion, supported by the great weight of the authority, that "stock dividends" are not "income," the same cannot be taxes under that provision of Act No. 2833 which provides for a tax upon income. Under the guise of an income tax, property which is not an income cannot be taxed. When the assets of a corporation have increased so as to justify the issuance of a stock dividend, the increase of the assets should be taken account of the Government in the ordinary tax duplicates for the purposes of assessment and collection of an additional tax. For all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion,
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
and so decide, that the judgment of the lower court should be revoked, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.
Araullo, C.J. Avancea, Villamor and Romualdez, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions STREET, J., concurring:
I agree that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and the judgment must be reversed. Instead of demurring the defendant should have answered and alleged, if such be the case, that the stock dividend which was the subject of taxation represents the amount of earnings or profits distributed by means of the issuance of said stock dividend; and the case should have been tried on that question of fact. In this connection it will be noted that section 25 (a) of Act No. 2833, of the Philippine Legislature, under which this tax was imposed, does not levy a tax generally on stock dividends to the extend of the part of the stock nor even to the extend of its value, but declares that stock dividends shall be considered as income to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed. Under provision, before the tax can be lawfully assessed and collected, it must appear that he stock dividend represents earning or profits distributed; and the burden of proof is on the Collector of Internal Revenue to show this. The case of Eisner vs. Macomber (252 U.S., 189; 64 L. ed., 521), has been cited as authority for the proposition that it is incompetent for the Legislature to tax as income any property which by nature is really capital as a stock dividend is there said to be. In that case the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Congressional Act taxing stock dividends as income was repugnant to that provision of the Constitution of the United States which required that direct taxes upon property shall be apportioned for collection among the several states according to population and that the Sixteenth Amendment, in authorizing the imposition by Congress of taxes upon income, had not vested Congress with the power to levy direct taxes, on property under the guise of income taxes. But the resolution embodied in that decision was evidently reached because of the necessity of harmonizing two different provisions of the Constitution of the United States, as amended. In this jurisdiction our Legislature has full authority to levy both taxes on property and income taxes; and there is no organic provision here in force similar to that which, under the Constitution of the United States, requires direct taxes on property to be levied in a particular way. It results, under the statute here in force, there being no constitutional restriction upon the action of the law making body, that the case before us presents merely a question of statutory construction. That the problem should be viewed in this light, in a case where there is no restriction upon the legislative body, is pointed our in Eisner vs. Macomber, supra, where in the course of his opinion Mr. Justice Pitney refers to the cases of the Swan Brewery Co. vs. Rex ([1914] A. C. 231), and Tax Commissioner vs. Putnam (227 Mass., 522), as being distinguished from Eisner vs. Macomber by the very circumstance that in those cases the law making body, or bodies were under no restriction as to the method of levying taxes. Such is the situation here.
OSTRAND, J., dissenting:

In its final analysis the opinion of the court rests principally, if not entirely on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Eisner vs. Macomber (252 U.S., 189), a decision which, for at least two reasons, is entirely inapplicable to the present case. In the first place, there is a radical difference between the definition of a taxable stock dividend given in the United States Income Tax Law of September 8, 1916, construed in the case of Eisner vs. Macomber, and that given in Act No. 2833 of the Philippine Legislature, the Act with which we are concerned in the present case. The former provides that "stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value;" the Philippine Act provides that "Stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed." The United State statute made stock dividends based upon an advance in the value of the property or investment taxable as income whether resulting from earning or not; our statute make stock dividends taxable only to the amount of the earning and profits distributed, and stock dividends based on the increment income and are not taxable. Though the difference would seem sufficiently obvious, we will endeavor to make it still clearer by borrowing one of the illustrations with which the opinion of the court is provided. The court says: A, an individual farmer, buys a farm with one hundred head of cattle for the sum of P10,000. At the end of the first year, by reason of business conditions and the increase of the value of both real estate and personal property, it is discovered that the value of the farm and the cattle is P20,000. A, during the year has received nothing from the farm or the cattle. His books at the beginning of the year show that he had property of the value of P10,000. His books at the close of the year show that he has property of the value of P20,000. A is not a corporation. The assets of his business are not shown therefore by certificate of stock. His books, however, show that the value of his property has increased during the year by P10,000. Can the P10,000, under any theory of business or law, be regarded as an "income" upon which the farmer can be required to pay an income tax? Is there any difference in law in the conditions of A in this illustration and the conditions of A and B in the immediately preceding illustration? Can the increase of the value of the property in either case be
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
regarded as an 'income' and be subjected to the payment of the income tax under the law? I answer no. And while the increment if in the form of a stock dividend would have been regarded as income under the United States statute and taxes as such, it is not regarded as income and cannot be so taxes under our statute because it is not based on earnings or profits. That is precisely the difference between the two statutes and that is the reason the illustration is not in point in this case, though it would have been entirely appropriate in the Eisner vs. Macomber case. It is also one of the reasons why that case is inapplicable here and why most of the arguments in the majority opinion are beside the mark. But let us suppose that A had sold the products of the farm during the year for P10,000 over and above his expense, and had invested the money in buildings and improvements on the farm, thus increasing its value to P20,000. Why would not the P10,000 earned during the year and so invested in improvements still be income for the year? And why would not a tax on these earnings be an income tax under the definition given in Black's Law Dictionary, and quoted with approval in the decision of the court, that "An income tax is a tax on the yearly profits arising from the property, professions, trades, and offices?" There can be but one answer. There is no reason whatever why the gains derived from the sale of the products of the farm should not be regarded as income whether reinvested in improvements upon the farm or not and there is no reason way a tax levied thereon cannot be considered an income tax. Moreover, to constitute income, profits, or earnings need not necessarily be converted into cash. Black's Law Dictionary says and I am again quoting from the decision of the court "An income is the return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains profits, or private revenue." As will be seen in the secondary sense of the word, income need not consist in money; upon this point there is no divergence of view among the lexicographers. If a farmer stores the gain produced upon his farm without selling, it may none the less be regarded as income. In the Eisner vs. Macomber case, the United States supreme Court felt bound to give the word "income" a strict interpretation. Under article 1, paragraph 2, clause 3, and paragraph 9, clause 4 of the original Constitution of the United States, Congress could not impose direct taxes without apportioning them among the States according to population. As it was thought desirable to impose Federal taxes upon incomes and as a levy of such taxes by appointment among the States in proportion to population would lead to an unequal distribution of the tax with reference to the amount of taxable incomes, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted and which provided that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The United States Supreme Court therefore says in the Eisner vs. Macomber case: A proper regard for its generis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important functions, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts. In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. That, in the absence of the peculiar restrictions placed by the Constitution upon taxing power of Congress, the decision of the court might have been different is clearly indicated by the following language: Two recent decisions, proceeding from courts of high jurisdiction, are cited in support of the position of the Government. Sean Brewery Co. vs. Rex ([1914] A. C., 231), arose under the Dividend Duties Act of Western Australia, which provided that "dividend" should include "every dividend, profit, advantage, or gain intended to be paid or credited to or distributed among any members or director of any company," except etc. There was a stock dividend, the new shares being alloted among the shareholders pro rata; and the question was whether this was a distribution of a dividend within the meaning of the act. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sustained the dividend duty upon the ground that, although "in ordinary language the new shares would not be distribution of a dividend," yet within the meaning of the act, such new share were an "advantage" to the recipients. There being no
constitutional restriction upon the action of the lawmaking body, the case presented merely a question of statutory construction, and manifestly the decision is not a precedent for the guidance of this court when acting under a duty to test an act of Congress by the limitations of a written Constitution having superior force.
In Tax Commissioner vs. Putnam (1917], 227 Mass., 522), it was held that the 44th Amendment to
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
the constitution of Massachusetts, which conferred upon the legislature full power to tax incomes, "must be interpreted as including every item which by any reasonable understanding can fairly be regarded as income" (pp. 526, 531); and that under it a stock dividend was taxable as income. . . . Evidently, in order to give a sufficiently broad sweep to the new taxing provision, it was deemed necessary to take the symbol for the substance, accumulation for distribution, capital accretion for its opposite; while a case where money is paid into the hand of the stockholder with an option to buy new shares with it, followed by acceptance of the option, was regarded as identical in substance with a case where the stockholder receives no money and has no option. The
Massachusetts court was not under an obligation, like the one which binds us, of applying a constitutional provisions that stand in the way of extending it by construction.
The Philippine Legislature has full power to levy taxes both on capital or property and on income, subject only to the provisions of the Organic Act that "the rule of taxation shall be uniform." In providing for the income tax the Legislature is therefore entirely free to employ the term "income" in its widest sense and is in nowise limited or hampered by organic limitations such as those imposed upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States. This is the second reason why the rule laid down in Eisner vs. Macomber has no application here. The majority opinion in discussing this question, says: There is no question that the Philippine Legislature may provide for the payment of an income tax, but it cannot, under the guise of an income tax, collect a tax on property which is not an "income." The Philippine Legislature cannot impose a tax upon "income" only . The Philippine Legislature has no power to provide a tax upon "automobiles," only, and under that law collect a tax upon a carreton or bull cart. Constitutional limitations upon the power of the Legislature are not stronger than statutory limitations, that is to say, a statute expressly adopted for one purpose cannot, without amendment, be applied to another purpose which is entirely distinct and different. A statute providing for an income tax cannot be construed to cover property which is not, in fact, income. The Legislature cannot, by a statutory declaration, change the real of a nature of a tax which it imposes. A law which imposes an importation tax on rice only cannot be construed to impose an importation tax on corn. These assertions while in the main true are, perhaps, a little to broadly stated; much will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. If the Legislature cannot do the things enumerate it must be by reason of the limitation imposed by the Organic Act, "That no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than on subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill." Similar provisions are contained in most State Constitutions, their object being to prevent "log-rolling" and the passing of undesirable measures without their being brought properly to the attention of the legislators. Where the prevention of this mischief is not involved, the courts have uniformly given such provisions a very liberal construction and there are few, if any, cases where a statute has been declared unconstitutional for dealing with several cognate subjects in the same Act and under the same title. (Lewis Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 2d ed., pars 109 et seq.: Government of the Philippine Island vs. Municipality of Binalonan and Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Segovia, 32, Phil., 634). Certainly no income tax statute would be declared unconstitutional on that ground for treating dividends as income and providing for their taxation as such. Reverting to the question of the nature of income, it is argued that a stock certificate has no intrinsic value and that, therefore, even it is based on earnings instead of increment in capital it cannot be regarded as income. But neither has a bank check or a time deposit certificate any intrinsic value, yet it may be negotiated, or sold, or assigned and it represents a cash value. So also does a stock certificate. A lawyer might take his fee in stock certificates instead of in money. Would it be seriously contended that he had received no fee and that his efforts had brought no income?1awph!l.net Some of the members of the court agree that stock dividends based on earnings or profits may be taxed as income, but take the view that in an action against the Collector of the Internal Revenue for recovering back taxes paid on non-taxable stock dividends, the plaintiff need not allege that the stock dividends are not base on earnings or profits distributed, but that question of the taxability or non-taxability of the stock dividends is a matter of defense and should be set up by the defendant by way of answer. I think this view is erroneous. If some stock dividends are taxable and others are not, an allegation that stock dividends in general have been taxed is not sufficient and does not state a cause of action. the presumption is that the tax has been legally collected and the burden is upon the plaintiff both to allege and prove facts showing that the collection is unlawfully or irregular. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 334, subsec. 14 and 31.)
Malcolm, J., concurs.
JOHNS, J., dissenting:

We have studied and analyzed with care the able and exhaustive majority opinion written by Mr. Justice Johnson.
G.R. No. L-17518
1/9/2014
In the final analysis, the question involved is whether the words "which stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value" are to be construed as meaning the same things as the words "stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed," as the majority opinion says. The first is an Act of Congress defining what is a stock dividend, and that the word dividend shall be construed as income to the amount of its cash value. It is upon that construction and that definition that the majority opinion is founded. That is the definition of the words as used in an Act of Congress. The other is an Act defining the meaning of the words as used in an Act of Congress. The other is an Act defining the meaning of the words by the Legislature of the Philippine Islands, and it says: "Stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed." It is true, as the majority opinion says, that in enacting the Income Tax Law of the Philippine Islands, the Legislature had before it the Act of Congress. But it is also true that by the Act of the Philippine Legislature "Stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed." One law is founded upon the actual cash value of the stock and the other is founded upon distributed earnings and profits. Much is said in the textbooks and by the numerous decisions cited in the majority opinion as to the meaning of the word income, and the decision in the United States are founded upon the meaning of that word, as it is used in the Act of Congress, and to the effect that the word is to be construed in its usual and ordinary meaning. But assuming that to be true, it must also be conceded that the Legislature of the Philippine Islands has a legal right to define the meaning of the word "income" by a legislative act, and when its meaning is defined by legislative act, it is the duty of the courts to follow that definition regardless of whether it is the usual and ordinary meaning of the word, and therein lies the distinction between the two acts and the reason why the authorities cited in the majority opinion are not in point. Act No. 2833 of the Philippine Legislature specifically says that "Stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed." The Act of Congress is founded upon the "cash value of the stock," and the Act in question is founded upon "the amount of the earnings or profits distributed." Hence, then, we have the meaning of the words defined in the legislative act, and it is very apparent that the purpose and intent of the legislative act was to avoid the meaning and construction of such words which is now given to them in the majority opinion. The Legislature had the power to define the meaning of the words, did define them, and it is the duty of the courts to follow and adopt the meaning and definition of the words given to them in the legislative act. As pointed out in the opinion of Mr. Justice Street, the constitutional limitations upon the legislative power for taxation purposes, which exist in the United States, does not exist in the Philippine Islands. There is no organic law here similar to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which require direct taxes on property to be levied in a specific way, in other words, the restrictions and limitations placed on the power to levy an income tax under the Constitution of the United States do not exist in the Philippine Islands. Hence, it must follow that the authorities cited in the majority opinion are not in point the instant case. They are founded upon different language, different organic powers, different conditions, and the different meaning of the same words as defined in the different legislative acts. The Philippine Legislature had a legal right to define the meaning of the words "dividend" and "income," and it expressly says "Stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of the earnings or profits distributed." In the instant case, the earnings and profits of the corporation were distributed among the existing stockholders of the company upon a pro rata basis, and they were made exclusively out of "distributed earnings and profits." The declaring of the dividend was a matter in the sole discretion of the stockholders, but when such a dividend is made from and out of "earnings or profits distributed," it then becomes and is an income within the meaning of Act No. 2833, and should be subject to an income tax. For such reason, I dissent. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
Lawphil Main Menu

Constitution Statutes Jurisprudence Judicial Issuances Executive Issuances Treatise Legal Link
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/oct1922/gr_l-17518_1922.html
9 / 41
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. - 247 U.S. 179 (1918) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
1/9/2014
Search
Justia.com Find a Lawyer Legal Answers Law More Justia Blog Verdict Law Blog Directory Legal Forms US Law US Supreme Court Cases Federal Cases US Constitution US Code Federal Regulations Federal Dockets State Cases State Codes & Statutes Trademarks Patents Company Legal Profiles Marketing Services Sign In Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 247 > Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. - 247 U.S. 179 > Case NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. - 247 U.S. 179 (1918)

Syllabus Case
U.S. Supreme Court

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918)
Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company No. 492 Argued March 4, 5, 6, 1918 Decided May 20, 1918 247 U.S. 179 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus
The purpose of the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, is not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. The act employs the term "income" in its natural and obvious sense, as importing something distinct from principal or capital, and conveying the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. While a conversion of capital may result in income, in the sense of the act, where the proceeds include an increment of value, such is not the case where the increment existed when the act took effect.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/179/case.html 10 / 41
1/9/2014
In distinguishing preexisting capital from income subject to the act, it is a mere question of method whether a deduction be made from gross receipts in ascertaining gross income, or from gross income, by way of depreciation, in ascertaining net income. Before the Corporation Tax Act, a lumber company bought timber land Page 247 U. S. 180 to supply its mills, and after the act, it manufactured part of the timber into lumber, which it sold. Held that the amount by which the timber so used had increased in value between the date of purchase and the effective date of the act was not an element of income to be considered in computing the tax. The principle upon which the removal of minerals by mining companies has been held not to produce a depreciation within the meaning of the act is inapplicable to the case of a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling lumber from timber supplied by it own timber lands, and which sell the lands incidentally after the timber is removed. The income is to be determined from the actual fact, as to which the corporate books are only evidential. 235 F. 686 affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court. This was an action to recover from the Collector additional taxes assessed against the respondent under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, and paid under protest. The district court gave judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (225 F. 437; 235 F. 686), and the case comes here on certiorari. It was submitted at the same time with several other cases decided this day, arising under the same act. Page 247 U. S. 181 The facts are as follows: plaintiff is a lumber manufacturing corporation which operates its own mills, manufactures into lumber therein its own stumpage, sells the lumber in the market, and from these sales and sales of various byproducts makes its profits, declares its dividends, and creates its surplus. It sells its stumpage lands, so-called, after the timber is cut and removed. Its sole business is as described; it is not a real estate trading corporation. Plaintiff acquired certain timber lands at its organization in 1903, and paid for them at a valuation approximately equivalent to $20 per acre. Owing to increases in the market price of stumpage, the market value of the timber land, on December 31, 1908, had become approximately $40 per acre. [Footnote 1] The company made no entry upon its books representing this increase, but each year entered as a profit the difference between the original cost of the timber cut and the sums received for the manufactured product, less the cost of manufacture. After the passage of the Excise Tax Act, and preparatory to making a return of income for the year 1909, the company revalued its timber stumpage as of December 31, 1908 at approximately $40 per acre. The good faith and accuracy of this valuation are not in question, but the figures representing it never were entered in the corporate books. Under the act, the company made a return for each of the years 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, and in each instance deducted from its gross receipts the market value, as of December 31, 1908, of the stumpage cut and converted during the year covered by the tax. There appears to have been no change in its market value during these years. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue having allowed Page 247 U. S. 182 a deduction of the cost of the timber in 1903 and refused to allow the difference between that cost and the fair market value of the timber on December 31, 1908, the question is whether this difference (made the basis of the additional taxes) was income for the years in which it was converted into money, within the meaning of the act. Other items are involved in the case, arising from the sale of certain stump lands, certain byproducts, and a parcel of real estate, but they raise no different question from that which arises upon the valuation of the stumpage, and need not be further mentioned. The act became effective January 1, 1909, and provided for the annual payment by every domestic corporation "organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares" of an excise tax "equivalent to one percentum upon the entire net income over and above five thousand dollars received by it from all sources during such year," with exceptions not now material. It declared that such net income should be ascertained by deducting from the gross income received within the year from all sources the expenses paid within the year out of income in the maintenance and operation of business and property, including rentals and the like; losses sustained within the year and not compensated by insurance or otherwise, including a reasonable allowance for depreciation of property; interest paid within the year to a limited extent; taxes, and amounts received within the year as dividends upon stock of other corporations subject to the same tax. In the case of a corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, the net income was to be ascertained by taking into account the gross income received within the year "from business transacted and capital invested within the United States and any of its territories, Alaska, and the District of Columbia," with deductions for expenses of maintenance and operation, Page 247 U. S. 183 business losses, interest, and taxes, all referable to that portion of its business transacted and capital invested within the United States, etc.
1/9/2014
An examination of these and other provisions of the act makes it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. As was pointed out in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 145, the tax was imposed "not upon the franchises of the corporation irrespective of their use in business, nor upon the property of the corporation, but upon the doing of corporate or insurance business and with respect to the carrying on thereof," an exposition that has been consistently adhered to. McCoach v. Minehill R. Co., 228 U. S. 295, 228 U. S. 300; United States v. Whitridge, 231 U. S. 144, 231 U. S. 147; Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway, 239 U. S. 69, 239 U. S. 72. When we come to apply the act to gains acquired through an increase in the value of capital assets acquired before and converted into money after the taking effect of the act, questions of difficulty are encountered. The suggestion that the entire proceeds of the conversion should be still treated as the same capital, changed only in form and containing no element of income, although including an increment of value, we reject at once as inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Selling for profit is too familiar a business transaction to permit us to suppose that it was intended to be omitted from consideration in an act for taxing the doing of business in corporate form upon the basis of the income received "from all sources." Starting from this point, the learned Solicitor General has submitted an elaborate argument in behalf of the Page 247 U. S. 184 government, based in part upon theoretical definitions of "capital," "income," "profits," etc., and in part upon expressions quoted from our opinions in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 147, and Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway, 239 U. S. 69, 239 U. S. 72, with the object of showing that a conversion of capital into money always produces income, and that, for the purposes of the present case, the words "gross income" are equivalent to "gross receipts," the insistence being that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets should be treated as gross income, and that, by deducting the mere cost of such assets, we arrive at net income. The cases referred to throw little light upon the present matter, and the expressions quoted from the opinions were employed by us with reference to questions wholly remote from any that is here presented. The formula that the entire receipts derived from a conversion of capital assets after deducting cost value must be treated as net income, so far as it is applied to a conversion of assets acquired before the act took effect and so as to tax as income any increased value that accrued before that date, finds no support in either the letter or the spirit of the act, and brings the former into incongruity with the latter. If the gross receipts upon such a conversion are to be treated as gross income, what authority have we for deducting either the cost or the previous market value of the assets converted in order to arrive at net income? The deductions specifically authorized are only such as expenses of maintenance and operation of the business and property, rentals, uncompensated losses, depreciation, interest, and taxes. There is no express provision that even allows a merchant to deduct the cost of the goods that he sells. Yet it is plain, we think, that, by the true intent and meaning of the act, the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Page 247 U. S. 185 Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax, conveying, rather, the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Understanding the term in this natural and obvious sense, it cannot be said that a conversion of capital assets invariably produces income. If sold at less than cost, it produces rather loss or outgo. Nevertheless, in many if not in most cases, there results a gain that properly may be accounted as a part of the "gross income" received "from all sources;" and by applying to this the authorized deductions we arrive at "net income." In order to determine whether there has been gain or loss, and the amount of the gain if any, we must withdraw from the gross proceeds an amount sufficient to restore the capital value that existed at the commencement of the period under consideration. This has been recognized from the beginning by the administrative officers of the government. Shortly after the passage of the act, and before the time (March 1, 1910) for making the first returns of income, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, promulgated Regulations No. 31, under date December 3, 1909, for the guidance of collectors and other subordinate officers in the performance of their duties under the act. These prescribed, with respect to manufacturing companies, that gross income should consist of the difference between the price received for the goods as sold and the cost of such goods as manufactured, cost to be "ascertained by an addition of a charge to the account of goods as Page 247 U. S. 186 manufactured during the year of the sum of the inventory at beginning of the year and a credit to the account of the sum of the inventory at the end of the year." In the case of mercantile companies, gross income was to be the "amount ascertained through inventory, or its equivalent, which shows the difference between the price received for goods sold and
1/9/2014
the cost of goods purchased during the year, with an addition of a charge to the account of the sum of the inventory at beginning of the year and a credit to the account of the sum of the inventory at the end of the year." And as to miscellaneous corporations, gross income was to be "the gross revenue derived from the operation and management of the business and property of the corporation," with all income derived from other sources. The matter of income arising from a profitable sale of capital assets was dealt with specifically in such a way as to limit the tax to income arising after the effective date of the act. This was done by adopting the rule that an advance in value arising during a period of years should be so adjusted that only so much as properly was attributable to the time subsequent to January 1, 1909 (December 31, 1908, would have been more precise) should be subjected to the tax. [Footnote 2] Subsequent treasury regulations, promulgated from time to time (T.D. 1606), March 29, 1910, Page 247 U. S. 187 paragraphs 40, 71, 76; T.D. 1675, February 14, 1911, paragraphs 37, 55, 75; T.D. 1742, December 15, 1911, paragraphs 43, 62, 86, 91, adhered to the same rule with respect to lands bought prior to January 1, 1909, and sold during a subsequent year, prescribing, however, that the profits, when not otherwise accurately determinable, should be prorated according to the time elapsed before and after the act took effect, and gave to it an application especially pertinent here, one of the regulations reading: "The mere removal of timber by cutting from timber lands, unless the timber is otherwise disposed of through sales or plant operations, is considered simply a change in form of assets. If said timber is disposed of through sales or otherwise, it is to be accounted for in accordance with regulations governing disposition of capital and other assets." In our opinion, these regulations correctly interpret the act in its application to the facts of the present case. When the act took effect, plaintiff's timber lands, with whatever value they then possessed, were a part of its capital assets, and a subsequent change of form by conversion into money did not change the essence. Their increased value since purchase, as that value stood on December 31, 1908, was not in any proper sense the result of the operation and management of the business or property of the corporation while the act as in force. Nor is the result altered by the mere fact that the increment of value had not been entered upon plaintiff's books of account. Such books are no more than evidential, being neither indispensable nor conclusive. The decision must rest upon the actual facts, which in the present case are not in dispute. The plaintiff, in making up its income tax returns for the years 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, deducted from its gross receipts the admittedly accurate valuation as of December 31, 1908, of the stumpage cut and converted during Page 247 U. S. 188 the year covered by the tax. There having been no change in market values during these years, the deduction did but restore to the capital in money that which had been withdrawn in stumpage cut, leaving the aggregate of capital neither increased nor decreased, and leaving the residue of the gross receipts to represent the gain realized by the conversion, so far as that gain arose while the act was in effect. This was in accordance with the true intent and meaning of the act. It may be observed that it is a mere question of methods, not affecting the result, whether the amount necessary to be withdrawn in order to preserve capital intact should be deducted from gross receipts in the process of ascertaining gross income or should be deducted from gross income in the form of a depreciation account in the process of determining net income. In either case, the object is to distinguish capital previously existing from income taxable under the act. There is only a superficial analogy between this case and the case of an allowance claimed for depreciation of a mining property through the removal of minerals, since we have held that owing to the peculiar nature of mining property its partial exhaustion attributable to the removal of ores cannot be regarded as depreciation within the meaning of the act. Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co., 242 U. S. 503, 242 U. S. 520, 242 U. S. 524; United States v. Biwabik Mining Co., ante, 247 U. S. 116; Goldfield Consolidated Mines Co. v. Scott, ante, 247 U. S. 126. It should be added that, in this case, no question is raised as to whether, in apportioning the profits derived from a disposition of capital assets acquired before and converted after the act took effect, the division should be pro rata, according to the time elapsed, or should be based upon an inventory taken as of December 31, 1908. Plaintiffs, in accordance with Treasury Regulations No. 31, T.D. 1578, January 4, 1910, and T.D. 1588, January Page 247 U. S. 189 24, 1910, adopted the latter method, and the government makes no contention as to the accuracy of the result thereby reached, under the stipulated facts, if our construction of the act be correct.
Judgment affirmed.
[Footnote 1] The valuations were based upon the quantity of standing timber at certain prices per thousand feet for the different varieties. The approximate acreage equivalent is employed for convenience. [Footnote 2] Extract from Treasury Regulations No. 31, issued December 3, 1909. "Sale of Capital Assets. -- In ascertaining income derived from the sale of capital assets, if the assets were acquired subsequent to January 1, 1909, the difference between the selling price and the buying price shall constitute an item of gross income to be added to
1/9/2014
or subtracted from gross income according to whether the selling price was greater or less than the buying price. If the capital assets were acquired prior to January 1, 1909, the amount of increment or depreciation representing the difference between the selling and buying price is to be adjusted so as to fairly determine the proportion of the loss or gain arising subsequent to January 1, 1909, and which proportion shall be deducted from or added to the gross income for the year in which the sale was made."
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources. Daily Opinion Summaries Subscribe to Justia's FREE Daily Newsletter Opinion Summaries
Subscribe Now
Find a Lawyer Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free full directory profile listing Ask a Lawyer Question: Add question details Additional Details: About Legal Answers Copyright Justia :: Company :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Contact Us
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/179/case.html
14 / 41
Eisner v. Macomber - 252 U.S. 189 (1920) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
1/9/2014
Search
Justia.com Find a Lawyer Legal Answers Law More Justia Blog Verdict Law Blog Directory Legal Forms US Law US Supreme Court Cases Federal Cases US Constitution US Code Federal Regulations Federal Dockets State Cases State Codes & Statutes Trademarks Patents Company Legal Profiles Marketing Services Sign In Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 252 > Eisner v. Macomber - 252 U.S. 189 > Case NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Eisner v. Macomber - 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Syllabus Case
U.S. Supreme Court

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
Eisner v. Macomber No. 318 Argued April 16, 1919 Restored to docket for reargument May 19, 1919 Reargued October 17, 20, 1919 Decided March 8, 1920 252 U.S. 189 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus
Congress was not empowered by the Sixteenth Amendment to tax, as income of the stockholder, without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913. P. 252 U. S. 201. Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418. The Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, plainly evinces the purpose of Congress to impose such taxes, and is to
1/9/2014
that extent in conflict with Art. I, 2, cl. 3, and Art. I, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution. Pp. 252 U. S. 199, 252 U. S. 217. These provisions of the Constitution necessarily limit the extension, by construction, of the Sixteenth Amendment. P. 252 U. S. 205. What is or is not "income" within the meaning of the Amendment must be determined in each case according to truth and substance, without regard to form. P. 252 U. S. 206. Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. P. 252 U. S. 207. Mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income; income is essentially a gain or profit, in itself, of exchangeable value, proceeding from capital, severed from it, and derived or received by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal. Id. A stock dividend, evincing merely a transfer of an accumulated surplus to the capital account of the corporation, takes nothing from the property of the corporation and adds nothing to that of the shareholder; a tax on such dividends is a tax an capital increase, and not on income, and, to be valid under the Constitution, such taxes must be apportioned according to population in the several states. P. 252 U. S. 208. Affirmed. Page 252 U. S. 190 The case is stated in the opinion. Page 252 U. S. 199 MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913. It arises under the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, 39 Stat. 756 et seq., which, in our opinion (notwithstanding a contention of the government that will be Page 252 U. S. 200 noticed), plainly evinces the purpose of Congress to tax stock dividends as income. * The facts, in outline, are as follows: On January 1, 1916, the Standard Oil Company of California, a corporation of that state, out of an authorized capital stock of $100,000,000, had shares of stock outstanding, par value $100 each, amounting in round figures to $50,000,000. In addition, it had surplus and undivided profits invested in plant, property, and business and required for the purposes of the corporation, amounting to about $45,000,000, of which about $20,000,000 had been earned prior to March 1, 1913, the balance thereafter. In January, 1916, in order to readjust the capitalization, the board of directors decided to issue additional shares sufficient to constitute a stock dividend of 50 percent of the outstanding stock, and to transfer from surplus account to capital stock account an amount equivalent to such issue. Appropriate resolutions were adopted, an amount equivalent to the par value of the proposed new stock was transferred accordingly, and the new stock duly issued against it and divided among the stockholders. Defendant in error, being the owner of 2,200 shares of the old stock, received certificates for 1, 100 additional Page 252 U. S. 201 shares, of which 18.07 percent, or 198.77 shares, par value $19,877, were treated as representing surplus earned between March 1, 1913, and January 1, 1916. She was called upon to pay, and did pay under protest, a tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1916, based upon a supposed income of $19,877 because of the new shares, and, an appeal to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue having been disallowed, she brought action against the Collector to recover the tax. In her complaint, she alleged the above facts and contended that, in imposing such a tax the Revenue Act of 1916 violated article 1, 2, cl. 3, and Article I, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution of the United States, requiring direct taxes to be apportioned according to population, and that the stock dividend was not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled upon the authority of Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, and, defendant having failed to plead further, final judgment went against him. To review it, the present writ of error is prosecuted. The case was argued at the last term, and reargued at the present term, both orally and by additional briefs. We are constrained to hold that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed, first, because the question at issue is controlled by Towne v. Eisner, supra; secondly, because a reexamination of the question with the additional light thrown upon it by elaborate arguments has confirmed the view that the underlying ground of that decision is sound, that it disposes of the question here presented, and that other fundamental considerations lead to the same result. In Towne v. Eisner, the question was whether a stock dividend made in 1914 against surplus earned prior to January 1, 1913, was taxable against the stockholder under the Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, 38 Stat. 114, 166, which provided ( B, p. 167) that net income should include "dividends," and also "gains or profits and income derived
1/9/2014
income should include "dividends," and also "gains or profits and income derived Page 252 U. S. 202 from any source whatever." Suit having been brought by a stockholder to recover the tax assessed against him by reason of the dividend, the district court sustained a demurrer to the complaint. 242 F. 702. The court treated the construction of the act as inseparable from the interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment; and, having referred to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, and quoted the Amendment, proceeded very properly to say (p. 704): "It is manifest that the stock dividend in question cannot be reached by the Income Tax Act and could not, even though Congress expressly declared it to be taxable as income, unless it is in fact income." It declined, however, to accede to the contention that, in Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, "stock dividends" had received a definition sufficiently clear to be controlling, treated the language of this Court in that case as obiter dictum in respect of the matter then before it (p. 706), and examined the question as res nova, with the result stated. When the case came here, after overruling a motion to dismiss made by the government upon the ground that the only question involved was the construction of the statute, and not its constitutionality, we dealt upon the merits with the question of construction only, but disposed of it upon consideration of the essential nature of a stock dividend disregarding the fact that the one in question was based upon surplus earnings that accrued before the Sixteenth Amendment took effect. Not only so, but we rejected the reasoning of the district court, saying (245 U.S. 245 U. S. 426): "Notwithstanding the thoughtful discussion that the case received below we cannot doubt that the dividend was capital as well for the purposes of the Income Tax Law as for distribution between tenant for life and remainderman. What was said by this Court upon the latter question is equally true for the former." "A stock dividend really takes nothing from the property of the corporation, and adds nothing to the Page 252 U. S. 203 interests of the shareholders. Its property is not diminished, and their interests are not increased. . . . The proportional interest of each shareholder remains the same. The only change is in the evidence which represents that interest, the new shares and the original shares together representing the same proportional interest that the original shares represented before the issue of the new ones." "Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, 136 U. S. 559-560. In short, the corporation is no poorer and the stockholder is no richer than they were before. Logan County v. United States, 169 U. S. 255, 169 U. S. 261. If the plaintiff gained any small advantage by the change, it certainly was not an advantage of $417,450, the sum upon which he was taxed. . . . What has happened is that the plaintiff's old certificates have been split up in effect and have diminished in value to the extent of the value of the new." This language aptly answered not only the reasoning of the district court, but the argument of the Solicitor General in this Court, which discussed the essential nature of a stock dividend. And if, for the reasons thus expressed, such a dividend is not to be regarded as "income" or "dividends" within the meaning of the Act of 1913, we are unable to see how it can be brought within the meaning of "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment, it being very clear that Congress intended in that act to exert its power to the extent permitted by the amendment. In Towne v. Eisner, it was not contended that any construction of the statute could make it narrower than the constitutional grant; rather the contrary. The fact that the dividend was charged against profits earned before the Act of 1913 took effect, even before the amendment was adopted, was neither relied upon nor alluded to in our consideration of the merits in that case. Not only so, but had we considered that a stock dividend constituted income in any true sense, it would have been held taxable under the Act of 1913 notwithstanding it was Page 252 U. S. 204 based upon profits earned before the amendment. We ruled at the same term, in Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339, that a cash dividend extraordinary in amount, and in Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 347, that a dividend paid in stock of another company, were taxable as income although based upon earnings that accrued before adoption of the amendment. In the former case, concerning "corporate profits that accumulated before the act took effect," we declared (pp. 247 U. S. 343-344): "Just as we deem the legislative intent manifest to tax the stockholder with respect to such accumulations only if and when, and to the extent that, his interest in them comes to fruition as income, that is, in dividends declared, so we can perceive no constitutional obstacle that stands in the way of carrying out this intent when dividends are declared out of a preexisting surplus. . . . Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, including dividends received in the ordinary course by a stockholder from a corporation, even though they were extraordinary in amount and might appear upon analysis to be a mere realization in possession of an inchoate and contingent interest that the stockholder had in a surplus of corporate assets previously existing." In Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 349, 247 U. S. 350, we observed that the decision of the district court in Towne v. Eisner had been reversed "only upon the ground that it related to a stock dividend which in fact took nothing from the property of the corporation and added nothing to the interest of the shareholder, but merely changed the evidence which represented that interest," and we distinguished the Peabody case from the Towne case upon the ground that "the dividend of Baltimore & Ohio shares was not a stock dividend but a distribution in specie of a portion of the assets of the Union Pacific." Therefore, Towne v. Eisner cannot be regarded as turning
1/9/2014
Page 252 U. S. 205 upon the point that the surplus accrued to the company before the act took effect and before adoption of the amendment. And what we have quoted from the opinion in that case cannot be regarded as obiter dictum, it having furnished the entire basis for the conclusion reached. We adhere to the view then expressed, and might rest the present case there not because that case in terms decided the constitutional question, for it did not, but because the conclusion there reached as to the essential nature of a stock dividend necessarily prevents its being regarded as income in any true sense. Nevertheless, in view of the importance of the matter, and the fact that Congress in the Revenue Act of 1916 declared (39 Stat. 757) that a "stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value," we will deal at length with the constitutional question, incidentally testing the soundness of our previous conclusion. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349, 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553, it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership, and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Article I, 2, cl. 3, and 9, cl. 4, of the original Constitution. Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among Page 252 U. S. 206 the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration." As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 1719; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173. A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts. In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. The fundamental relation of "capital" to "income" has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," Page 252 U. S. 207 as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case, pp. 247 U. S. 183-185. Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment -- "incomes, from whatever source derived" -- the essential thought being expressed Page 252 U. S. 208 with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution.
18 / 41
1/9/2014
Can a stock dividend, considering its essential character, be brought within the definition? To answer this, regard must be had to the nature of a corporation and the stockholder's relation to it. We refer, of course, to a corporation such as the one in the case at bar, organized for profit, and having a capital stock divided into shares to which a nominal or par value is attributed. Certainly the interest of the stockholder is a capital interest, and his certificates of stock are but the evidence of it. They state the number of shares to which he is entitled and indicate their par value and how the stock may be transferred. They show that he or his assignors, immediate or remote, have contributed capital to the enterprise, that he is entitled to a corresponding interest proportionate to the whole, entitled to have the property and business of the company devoted during the corporate existence to attainment of the common objects, entitled to vote at stockholders' meetings, to receive dividends out of the corporation's profits if and when declared, and, in the event of liquidation, to receive a proportionate share of the net assets, if any, remaining after paying creditors. Short of liquidation, or until dividend declared, he has no right to withdraw any part of either capital or profits from the common enterprise; on the contrary, his interest pertains not to any part, divisible or indivisible, but to the entire assets, business, and affairs of the company. Nor is it the interest of an owner in the assets themselves, since the corporation has full title, legal and equitable, to the whole. The stockholder has the right to have the assets employed in the enterprise, with the incidental rights mentioned; but, as stockholder, he has no right to withdraw, only the right to persist, subject to the risks of the enterprise, and looking only to dividends for his return. If he desires to dissociate himself Page 252 U. S. 209 from the company, he can do so only by disposing of his stock. For bookkeeping purposes, the company acknowledges a liability in form to the stockholders equivalent to the aggregate par value of their stock, evidenced by a "capital stock account." If profits have been made and not divided, they create additional bookkeeping liabilities under the head of "profit and loss," "undivided profits," "surplus account," or the like. None of these, however, gives to the stockholders as a body, much less to any one of them, either a claim against the going concern for any particular sum of money or a right to any particular portion of the assets or any share in them unless or until the directors conclude that dividends shall be made and a part of the company's assets segregated from the common fund for the purpose. The dividend normally is payable in money, under exceptional circumstances in some other divisible property, and when so paid, then only (excluding, of course, a possible advantageous sale of his stock or winding-up of the company) does the stockholder realize a profit or gain which becomes his separate property, and thus derive income from the capital that he or his predecessor has invested. In the present case, the corporation had surplus and undivided profits invested in plant, property, and business, and required for the purposes of the corporation, amounting to about $45,000,000, in addition to outstanding capital stock of $50,000,000. In this, the case is not extraordinary. The profits of a corporation, as they appear upon the balance sheet at the end of the year, need not be in the form of money on hand in excess of what is required to meet current liabilities and finance current operations of the company. Often, especially in a growing business, only a part, sometimes a small part, of the year's profits is in property capable of division, the remainder having been absorbed in the acquisition of increased plant, Page 252 U. S. 210 equipment, stock in trade, or accounts receivable, or in decrease of outstanding liabilities. When only a part is available for dividends, the balance of the year's profits is carried to the credit of undivided profits, or surplus, or some other account having like significance. If thereafter the company finds itself in funds beyond current needs, it may declare dividends out of such surplus or undivided profits; otherwise it may go on for years conducting a successful business, but requiring more and more working capital because of the extension of its operations, and therefore unable to declare dividends approximating the amount of its profits. Thus, the surplus may increase until it equals or even exceeds the par value of the outstanding capital stock. This may be adjusted upon the books in the mode adopted in the case at bar -- by declaring a "stock dividend." This, however, is no more than a book adjustment, in essence -not a dividend, but rather the opposite; no part of the assets of the company is separated from the common fund, nothing distributed except paper certificates that evidence an antecedent increase in the value of the stockholder's capital interest resulting from an accumulation of profits by the company, but profits so far absorbed in the business as to render it impracticable to separate them for withdrawal and distribution. In order to make the adjustment, a charge is made against surplus account with corresponding credit to capital stock account, equal to the proposed "dividend;" the new stock is issued against this and the certificates delivered to the existing stockholders in proportion to their previous holdings. This, however, is merely bookkeeping that does not affect the aggregate assets of the corporation or its outstanding liabilities; it affects only the form, not the essence, of the "liability" acknowledged by the corporation to its own shareholders, and this through a readjustment of accounts on one side of the balance sheet only, increasing "capital stock" at the expense of Page 252 U. S. 211 "surplus"; it does not alter the preexisting proportionate interest of any stockholder or increase the intrinsic value of his holding or of the aggregate holdings of the other stockholders as they stood before. The new certificates simply increase the number of the shares, with consequent dilution of the value of each share. A "stock dividend" shows that the company's accumulated profits have been capitalized, instead of distributed to the stockholders or retained as surplus available for distribution in money or in kind should opportunity offer. Far from being a realization of profits of the stockholder, it tends rather to postpone such realization, in that the fund represented by the new stock has been transferred from surplus to capital, and no longer is available for actual distribution. The essential and controlling fact is that the stockholder has received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit; on the contrary, every dollar of his original investment, together with whatever accretions and accumulations have resulted from employment of his money and that of the other stockholders in the business of the company, still remains the property of the company, and subject to business risks which may result in wiping out the entire investment. Having regard to the very truth of the matter, to substance and not to form, he has received nothing that answers the definition of income within the meaning of the Sixteenth
1/9/2014
Amendment. Being concerned only with the true character and effect of such a dividend when lawfully made, we lay aside the question whether, in a particular case, a stock dividend may be authorized by the local law governing the corporation, or whether the capitalization of profits may be the result of correct judgment and proper business policy on the part of its management, and a due regard for the interests of the stockholders. And we are considering the taxability of bona fide stock dividends only. Page 252 U. S. 212 We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction. It is said that a stockholder may sell the new shares acquired in the stock dividend, and so he may, if he can find a buyer. It is equally true that, if he does sell, and in doing so realizes a profit, such profit, like any other, is income, and, so far as it may have arisen since the Sixteenth Amendment, is taxable by Congress without apportionment. The same would be true were he to sell some of his original shares at a profit. But if a shareholder sells dividend stock, he necessarily disposes of a part of his capital interest, just as if he should sell a part of his old stock, either before or after the dividend. What he retains no longer entitles him to the same proportion of future dividends as before the sale. His part in the control of the company likewise is diminished. Thus, if one holding $60,000 out of a total $100,000 of the capital stock of a corporation should receive in common with other stockholders a 50 percent stock dividend, and should sell his part, he thereby would be reduced from a majority to a minority stockholder, having six-fifteenths instead of six-tenths of the total stock outstanding. A corresponding and proportionate decrease in capital interest and in voting power would befall a minority holder should he sell dividend stock, it being in the nature of things impossible for one to dispose of any part of such an issue without a proportionate disturbance of the distribution of the entire capital stock and a like diminution of the seller's comparative voting power -that "right preservative of rights" in the control of a corporation. Page 252 U. S. 213 Yet, without selling, the shareholder, unless possessed of other resources, has not the wherewithal to pay an income tax upon the dividend stock. Nothing could more clearly show that to tax a stock dividend is to tax a capital increase, and not income, than this demonstration that, in the nature of things, it requires conversion of capital in order to pay the tax. Throughout the argument of the government, in a variety of forms, runs the fundamental error already mentioned -- a failure to appraise correctly the force of the term "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, or at least to give practical effect to it. Thus, the government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates, which, so far as they have any effect, deny him present participation in such earnings. It contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that, under the Act of 1916, "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his invested profits or gains," whereas there has been no segregation of profits, nor has he any separate certificate representing a personal gain, since the certificates, new and old, are alike in what they represent -- a capital interest in the entire concerns of the corporation. We have no doubt of the power or duty of a court to look through the form of the corporation and determine the question of the stockholder's right in order to ascertain whether he has received income taxable by Congress without apportionment. But, looking through the form, Page 252 U. S. 214 we cannot disregard the essential truth disclosed, ignore the substantial difference between corporation and stockholder, treat the entire organization as unreal, look upon stockholders as partners when they are not such, treat them as having in equity a right to a partition of the corporate assets when they have none, and indulge the fiction that they have received and realized a share of the profits of the company which in truth they have neither received nor realized. We must treat the corporation as a substantial entity separate from the stockholder not only because such is the practical fact, but because it is only by recognizing such separateness that any dividend -- even one paid in money or property -- can be regarded as income of the stockholder. Did we regard corporation and stockholders as altogether identical, there would be no income except as the corporation acquired it, and while this would be taxable against the corporation as income under appropriate provisions of law, the individual stockholders could not be separately and additionally taxed with respect to their several shares even when divided, since, if there were entire identity between them and the company, they could not be regarded as receiving anything from it, any more than if one's money were to be removed from one pocket to another. Conceding that the mere issue of a stock dividend makes the recipient no richer than before, the government nevertheless contends that the new certificates measure the extent to which the gains accumulated by the corporation have made him the richer. There are two insuperable difficulties with this. In the first place, it would depend upon how long he had held the stock whether the stock dividend indicated the extent to which he had been enriched by the operations of the company; unless he had held it throughout such operations, the measure would not hold true. Secondly, and more important for present purposes, enrichment through increase in value Page 252 U. S. 215 of capital investment is not income in any proper meaning of the term. The complaint contains averments respecting the market prices of stock such as plaintiff held, based upon sales before and after the stock dividend, tending to show that the receipt of the additional shares did not substantially change the market value of her entire
1/9/2014
stock dividend, tending to show that the receipt of the additional shares did not substantially change the market value of her entire holdings. This tends to show that, in this instance, market quotations reflected intrinsic values -- a thing they do not always do. But we regard the market prices of the securities as an unsafe criterion in an inquiry such as the present, when the question must be not what will the thing sell for, but what is it in truth and in essence. It is said there is no difference in principle between a simple stock dividend and a case where stockholders use money received as cash dividends to purchase additional stock contemporaneously issued by the corporation. But an actual cash dividend, with a real option to the stockholder either to keep the money for his own or to reinvest it in new shares, would be as far removed as possible from a true stock dividend, such as the one we have under consideration, where nothing of value is taken from the company's assets and transferred to the individual ownership of the several stockholders and thereby subjected to their disposal. The government's reliance upon the supposed analogy between a dividend of the corporation's own shares and one made by distributing shares owned by it in the stock of another company calls for no comment beyond the statement that the latter distributes assets of the company among the shareholders, while the former does not, and for no citation of authority except Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 347, 247 U. S. 349-350. Two recent decisions, proceeding from courts of high jurisdiction, are cited in support of the position of the government. Page 252 U. S. 216
Swan Brewery Co., Ltd. v. Rex, [1914] A.C. 231, arose under the Dividend Duties Act of Western Australia, which provided that
"dividend" should include "every dividend, profit, advantage, or gain intended to be paid or credited to or distributed among any members or directors of any company," except, etc. There was a stock dividend, the new shares being allotted among the shareholders pro rata, and the question was whether this was a distribution of a dividend within the meaning of the act. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sustained the dividend duty upon the ground that, although "in ordinary language the new shares would not be called a dividend, nor would the allotment of them be a distribution of a dividend," yet, within the meaning of the act, such new shares were an "advantage" to the recipients. There being no constitutional restriction upon the action of the lawmaking body, the case presented merely a question of statutory construction, and manifestly the decision is not a precedent for the guidance of this Court when acting under a duty to test an act of Congress by the limitations of a written Constitution having superior force. In Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, (1917) 227 Mass. 522, it was held that the Forty-Fourth amendment to the Constitution of Massachusetts, which conferred upon the legislature full power to tax incomes, "must be interpreted as including every item which by any reasonable understanding can fairly be regarded as income" (pp. 526, 531), and that under it, a stock dividend was taxable as income, the court saying (p. 535): "In essence, the thing which has been done is to distribute a symbol representing an accumulation of profits, which, instead of being paid out in cash, is invested in the business, thus augmenting its durable assets. In this aspect of the case, the substance of the transaction is no different from what it would be if a cash dividend had been declared with the privilege of subscription to an equivalent amount of new shares. " Page 252 U. S. 217 We cannot accept this reasoning. Evidently, in order to give a sufficiently broad sweep to the new taxing provision, it was deemed necessary to take the symbol for the substance, accumulation for distribution, capital accretion for its opposite, while a case where money is paid into the hand of the stockholder with an option to buy new shares with it, followed by acceptance of the option, was regarded as identical in substance with a case where the stockholder receives no money and has no option. The Massachusetts court was not under an obligation, like the one which binds us, of applying a constitutional amendment in the light of other constitutional provisions that stand in the way of extending it by construction. Upon the second argument, the government, recognizing the force of the decision in Towne v. Eisner, supra, and virtually abandoning the contention that a stock dividend increases the interest of the stockholder or otherwise enriches him, insisted as an alternative that, by the true construction of the Act of 1916, the tax is imposed not upon the stock dividend, but rather upon the stockholder's share of the undivided profits previously accumulated by the corporation, the tax being levied as a matter of convenience at the time such profits become manifest through the stock dividend. If so construed, would the act be constitutional? That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this Court. The government relies upon Collector v. Hubbard, (1870) Page 252 U. S. 218 12 Wall. 1, which arose under 117 of the Act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, 13 Stat. 223, 282, providing that "The gains and profits of all companies, whether incorporated or partnership, other than the companies specified in that section, shall be included in estimating the annual gains, profits, or income of any person, entitled to the same, whether divided or otherwise." The court held an individual taxable upon his proportion of the earnings of a corporation although not declared as dividends and although invested in assets not in their nature divisible. Conceding that the stockholder for certain purposes had no title prior to dividend declared, the court nevertheless said (p. 79 U. S. 18): "Grant all that, still it is true that the owner of a share of stock in a corporation holds the share with all its incidents, and that among those incidents is the right to receive all future dividends -- that is, his proportional share of all profits not then divided. Profits are
1/9/2014
incident to the share to which the owner at once becomes entitled provided he remains a member of the corporation until a dividend is made. Regarded as an incident to the shares, undivided profits are property of the shareholder, and as such are the proper subject of sale, gift, or devise. Undivided profits invested in real estate, machinery, or raw material for the purpose of being manufactured are investments in which the stockholders are interested, and when such profits are actually appropriated to the payment of the debts of the corporation, they serve to increase the market value of the shares, whether held by the original subscribers or by assignees." Insofar as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 627628, 158 U. S. 637. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned Page 252 U. S. 219 among the states, the government nevertheless insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared. Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, 2, cl. 3, and Article I, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.
Judgment affirmed.
* "Title I. -- Income Tax" "Part I. -- On Individuals" "Sec. 2. (a) That, subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived, . . . also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever: Provided, that the term 'dividends' as used in this title shall be held to mean any distribution made or ordered to be made by a corporation, . . . out of its earnings or profits accrued since March first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and payable to its shareholders, whether, in cash or in stock of the corporation, . . . which stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value." MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting. I think that Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, was right in its reasoning and result, and that, on sound principles, the stock dividend was not income. But it was clearly intimated in that case that the construction of the statute then before the Court might be different from that of the Constitution. 245 U.S. 245 U. S. 425. I think that the word "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment should be read in Page 252 U. S. 220 "a sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption." Bishop v. State, 149 Ind. 223, 230; State v. Butler, 70 Fla. 102, 133. For it was for public adoption that it was proposed. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 17 U. S. 407. The known purpose of this Amendment was to get rid of nice questions as to what might be direct taxes, and I cannot doubt that most people not lawyers would suppose when they voted for it that they put a question like the present to rest. I am of opinion that the Amendment justifies the tax. See Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 532, 533. MR. JUSTICE DAY concurs in this opinion. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the following opinion, in which MR. JUSTICE CLARKE concurred. Financiers, with the aid of lawyers, devised long ago two different methods by which a corporation can, without increasing its indebtedness, keep for corporate purposes accumulated profits, and yet, in effect, distribute these profits among its stockholders. One method is a simple one. The capital stock is increased; the new stock is paid up with the accumulated profits, and the new shares of paid-up stock are then distributed among the stockholders pro rata as a dividend. If the stockholder prefers ready money to increasing his holding of the stock in the company, he sells the new stock received as a dividend. The other method is slightly more complicated. .arrangements are made for an increase of stock to be offered to stockholders pro rata at par, and at the same time for the payment of a cash dividend equal to the amount which the stockholder will be required to pay to Page 252 U. S. 221 the company, if he avails himself of the right to subscribe for his pro rata of the new stock. If the stockholder takes the new stock, as is expected, he may endorse the dividend check received to the corporation, and thus pay for the new stock. In order to ensure that all the new stock so offered will be taken, the price at which it is offered is fixed far below what it is believed will be its market value. If the stockholder prefers ready money to an increase of his holdings of stock, he may sell his right to take new stock pro rata, which is
1/9/2014
evidenced by an assignable instrument. In that event the purchaser of the rights repays to the corporation, as the subscription price of the new stock, an amount equal to that which it had paid as a cash dividend to the stockholder. Both of these methods of retaining accumulated profits while in effect distributing them as a dividend had been in common use in the United States for many years prior to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. They were recognized equivalents. Whether a particular corporation employed one or the other method was determined sometimes by requirements of the law under which the corporation was organized; sometimes it was determined by preferences of the individual officials of the corporation, and sometimes by stock market conditions. Whichever method was employed, the resultant distribution of the new stock was commonly referred to as a stock dividend. How these two methods have been employed may be illustrated by the action in this respect (as reported in Moody's Manual, 1918 Industrial, and the Commercial and Financial Chronicle) of some of the Standard Oil companies since the disintegration pursuant to the decision of this Court in 1911. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1. (a) Standard Oil Co. (of Indiana), an Indiana corporation. It had on December 31, 1911, $1,000,000 capital stock (all common), and a large surplus. On May 15, Page 252 U. S. 222 1912, it increased its capital stock to $30,000,000, and paid a simple stock dividend of 2,900 percent in stock. [Footnote 1] (b) Standard Oil Co. (of Nebraska), a Nebraska corporation. It had on December 31, 1911, $600,000 capital stock (all common), and a substantial surplus. On April 15, 1912, it paid a simple stock dividend of 33 1/3 percent, increasing the outstanding capital to $800,000. During the calendar year 1912, it paid cash dividends aggregating 20 percent, but it earned considerably more, and had at the close of the year again a substantial surplus. On June 20, 1913, it declared a further stock dividend of 25 percent, thus increasing the capital to $1,000,000. [Footnote 2] (c) The Standard Oil Co. (of Kentucky), a Kentucky corporation. It had on December 31, 1913, $1,000,000 capital stock (all common) and $3,701,710 surplus. Of this surplus, $902,457 had been earned during the calendar year 1913, the net profits of that year having been $1,002,457 and the dividends paid only $100,000 (10 percent). On December 22, 1913, a cash dividend of $200 per share was declared payable on February 14, 1914, to stockholders of record January 31, 1914, and these stockholders were offered the right to subscribe for an equal amount of new stock at par and to apply the cash dividend in payment therefor. The outstanding stock was thus increased to $3,000,000. During the calendar years 1914, 1915, and 1916, quarterly dividends were paid on this stock at an annual rate of between 15 percent and 20 percent, but the company's surplus increased by $2,347,614, so that, on December 31, 1916, it had a large surplus over its $3,000,000 capital stock. On December 15, 1916, the company issued a circular to the stockholders, saying: "The company's business for this year has shown a Page 252 U. S. 223 very good increase in volume and a proportionate increase in profits, and it is estimated that, by January 1, 1917, the company will have a surplus of over $4,000,000. The board feels justified in stating that, if the proposition to increase the capital stock is acted on favorably, it will be proper in the near future to declare a cash dividend of 100 percent and to allow the stockholders the privilege pro rata according to their holdings, to purchase the new stock at par, the plan being to allow the stockholders, if they desire, to use their cash dividend to pay for the new stock." The increase of stock was voted. The company then paid a cash dividend of 100 percent, payable May 1, 1917, again offering to such stockholders the right to subscribe for an equal amount of new stock at par and to apply the cash dividend in payment therefor. Moody's Manual, describing the transaction with exactness, says first that the stock was increased from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000, "a cash dividend of 100 percent, payable May 1, 1917, being exchanged for one share of new stock, the equivalent of a 100 percent stock dividend." But later in the report giving, as customary in the Manual, the dividend record of the company, the Manual says: "A stock dividend of 200 percent was paid February 14, 1914, and one of 100 percent on May 1, 1197." And, in reporting specifically the income account of the company for a series of years ending December 31, covering net profits, dividends paid, and surplus for the year, it gives, as the aggregate of dividends for the year 1917, $660,000 (which was the aggregate paid on the quarterly cash dividend -- 5 percent January and April; 6 percent July and October), and adds in a note: "In addition, a stock dividend of 100 percent was paid during the year." [Footnote 3] The Wall Street Journal of Page 252 U. S. 224 May 2, 1917, p. 2, quotes the 1917 "high" price for Standard Oil of Kentucky as "375 ex stock dividend." It thus appears that, among financiers and investors, the distribution of the stock, by whichever method effected, is called a stock dividend; that the two methods by which accumulated profits are legally retained for corporate purposes and at the same time distributed as dividends are recognized by them to be equivalents, and that the financial results to the corporation and to the stockholders of the two methods are substantially the same, unless a difference results from the application of the federal income tax law. Mrs. Macomber, a citizen and resident of New York, was, in the year 1916, a stockholder in the Standard Oil Company (of California), a corporation organized under the laws of California and having its principal place of business in that state. During that year, she received from the company a stock dividend representing profits earned since March 1, 1913. The dividend was paid by direct issue of the stock to her according to the simple method described above, pursued also by the Indiana and Nebraska companies. In 1917, she was taxed under the federal law on the stock dividend so received at its par value of $100 a share, as income received during the year 1916. Such a stock dividend is income, as distinguished from capital, both under the law of New York and under the law of California, because in both states every dividend representing profits is deemed to be income, whether paid in cash or in stock. It had
1/9/2014
been so held in New York, where the question arose as between life tenant and remainderman, Lowry v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 172 N.Y. 137; Matter of Osborne, 209 N.Y. 450, and also, where the question arose in matters of taxation, People v. Glynn, Page 252 U. S. 225 130 App.Div. 332, 198 N.Y. 605. It has been so held in California, where the question appears to have arisen only in controversies between life tenant and remainderman. Estate of Duffill, 58 Cal.Dec. 97, 180 Cal. 748. It is conceded that, if the stock dividend paid to Mrs. Macomber had been made by the more complicated method pursued by the Standard Oil Company of Kentucky -- that is, issuing rights to take new stock pro rata and paying to each stockholder simultaneously a dividend in cash sufficient in amount to enable him to pay for this pro rata of new stock to be purchased -- the dividend so paid to him would have been taxable as income, whether he retained the cash or whether he returned it to the corporation in payment for his pro rata of new stock. But it is contended that, because the simple method was adopted of having the new stock issued direct to the stockholders as paid-up stock, the new stock is not to be deemed income, whether she retained it or converted it into cash by sale. If such a different result can flow merely from the difference in the method pursued, it must be because Congress is without power to tax as income of the stockholder either the stock received under the latter method or the proceeds of its sale, for Congress has, by the provisions in the Revenue Act of 1916, expressly declared its purpose to make stock dividends, by whichever method paid, taxable as income. The Sixteenth Amendment, proclaimed February 25, 1913, declares: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, 2a, 39 Stat. 756, 757, provided: "That the term 'dividends' as used in this title shall Page 252 U. S. 226 be held to mean any distribution made or ordered to be made by a corporation, . . . out of its earnings or profits accrued since March first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and payable to its shareholders, whether in cash or in stock of the corporation, . . . which stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of its cash value." Hitherto, powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution have been liberally construed, and have been held to extend to every means appropriate to attain the end sought. In determining the scope of the power, the substance of the transaction, not its form, has been regarded. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 14 U. S. 326; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 17 U. S. 407, 17 U. S. 415; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 446; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410, 29 U. S. 433; Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U. S. 580, 103 U. S. 585-587; Legal Tender Case, 110 U. S. 421, 110 U. S. 444; Lithograph Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 111 U. S. 58; United States v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 427, 163 U. S. 440-442; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 199 U. S. 448-449. Is there anything in the phraseology of the Sixteenth Amendment or in the nature of corporate dividends which should lead to a departure from these rules of construction and compel this Court to hold that Congress is powerless to prevent a result so extraordinary as that here contended for by the stockholder?
First. The term "income," when applied to the investment of the stockholder in a corporation, had, before the adoption of the Sixteenth
Amendment, been commonly understood to mean the returns from time to time received by the stockholder from gains or earnings of the corporation. A dividend received by a stockholder from a corporation may be either in distribution of capital assets or in distribution of profits. Whether it is the one or the other is in no way affected by the medium in which it is paid, nor by the method or means through which the particular thing distributed as a dividend was procured. If the Page 252 U. S. 227 dividend is declared payable in cash, the money with which to pay it is ordinarily taken from surplus cash in the treasury. But (if there are profits legally available for distribution and the law under which the company was incorporated so permits) the company may raise the money by discounting negotiable paper, or by selling bonds, scrip or stock of another corporation then in the treasury, or by selling its own bonds, scrip or stock then in the treasury, or by selling its own bonds, scrip or stock issued expressly for that purpose. How the money shall be raised is wholly a matter of financial management. The manner in which it is raised in no way affects the question whether the dividend received by the stockholder is income or capital, nor can it conceivably affect the question whether it is taxable as income. Likewise whether a dividend declared payable from profits shall be paid in cash or in some other medium is also wholly a matter of financial management. If some other medium is decided upon, it is also wholly a question of financial management whether the distribution shall be, for instance, in bonds, scrip or stock of another corporation or in issues of its own. And if the dividend is paid in its own issues, why should there be a difference in result dependent upon whether the distribution was made from such securities then in the treasury or from others to be created and issued by the company expressly for that purpose? So far as the distribution may be made from its own issues of bonds, or preferred stock created expressly for the purpose, it clearly would make no difference, in the decision of the question whether the dividend was a distribution of profits, that the securities had to be created expressly for the purpose of distribution. If a dividend paid in securities of that nature represents a distribution of profits, Congress may, of course, tax it as income of the stockholder. Is the result different where the security distributed is common stock? Page 252 U. S. 228 Suppose that a corporation having power to buy and sell its own stock purchases, in the interval between its regular dividend dates,
1/9/2014
with moneys derived from current profits, some of its own common stock as a temporary investment, intending at the time of purchase to sell it before the next dividend date and to use the proceeds in paying dividends, but later, deeming it inadvisable either to sell this stock or to raise by borrowing the money necessary to pay the regular dividend in cash, declares a dividend payable in this stock; can anyone doubt that, in such a case, the dividend in common stock would be income of the stockholder and constitutionally taxable as such? See Green v. Bissell, 79 Conn. 547; Leland v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 542. And would it not likewise be income of the stockholder subject to taxation if the purpose of the company in buying the stock so distributed had been from the beginning to take it off the market and distribute it among the stockholders as a dividend, and the company actually did so? And, proceeding a short step further, suppose that a corporation decided to capitalize some of its accumulated profits by creating additional common stock and selling the same to raise working capital, but after the stock has been issued and certificates therefor are delivered to the bankers for sale, general financial conditions make it undesirable to market the stock, and the company concludes that it is wiser to husband, for working capital, the cash which it had intended to use in paying stockholders a dividend, and, instead, to pay the dividend in the common stock which it had planned to sell; would not the stock so distributed be a distribution of profits, and hence, when received, be income of the stockholder and taxable as such? If this be conceded, why should it not be equally income of the stockholder, and taxable as such, if the common stock created by capitalizing profits had been originally created for the express purpose of being distributed Page 252 U. S. 229 as a dividend to the stockholder who afterwards received it?
Second. It has been said that a dividend payable in bonds or preferred stock created for the purpose of distributing profits may be
income and taxable as such, but that the case is different where the distribution is in common stock created for that purpose. Various reasons are assigned for making this distinction. One is that the proportion of the stockholder's ownership to the aggregate number of the shares of the company is not changed by the distribution. But that is equally true where the dividend is paid in its bonds or in its preferred stock. Furthermore, neither maintenance nor change in the proportionate ownership of a stockholder in a corporation has any bearing upon the question here involved. Another reason assigned is that the value of the old stock held is reduced approximately by the value of the new stock received, so that the stockholder, after receipt of the stock dividend, has no more than he had before it was paid. That is equally true whether the dividend be paid in cash or in other property -- for instance, bonds, scrip, or preferred stock of the company. The payment from profits of a large cash dividend, and even a small one, customarily lowers the then market value of stock because the undivided property represented by each share has been correspondingly reduced. The argument which appears to be most strongly urged for the stockholders is that, when a stock dividend is made, no portion of the assets of the company is thereby segregated for the stockholder. But does the issue of new bonds or of preferred stock created for use as a dividend result in any segregation of assets for the stockholder? In each case, he receives a piece of paper which entitles him to certain rights in the undivided property. Clearly, segregation of assets in a physical sense is not an essential of income. The year's gains of a partner is taxable as income although there likewise no Page 252 U. S. 230 segregation of his share in the gains from that of his partners is had. The objection that there has been no segregation is presented also in another form. It is argued that, until there is a segregation, the stockholder cannot know whether he has really received gains, since the gains may be invested in plant or merchandise or other property, and perhaps be later lost. But is not this equally true of the share of a partner in the year's profits of the firm or, indeed, of the profits of the individual who is engaged in business alone? And is it not true also when dividends are paid in cash? The gains of a business, whether conducted by an individual, by a firm, or by a corporation are ordinarily reinvested in large part. Many a cash dividend honestly declared as a distribution of profits proves later to have been paid out of capital because errors in forecast prevent correct ascertainment of values. Until a business adventure has been completely liquidated, it can never be determined with certainty whether there have been profits unless the returns at least exceeded the capital originally invested. Businessmen, dealing with the problem practically, fix necessarily periods and rules for determining whether there have been net profits -- that is, income or gains. They protect themselves from being seriously misled by adopting a system of depreciation charges and reserves. Then they act upon their own determination whether profits have been made. Congress, in legislating, has wisely adopted their practices as its own rules of action.
Third. The government urges that it would have been within the power of Congress to have taxed as income of the stockholder his pro rata share of undistributed profits earned even if no stock dividend representing it had been paid. Strong reasons may be assigned for such a view. See Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 1. The undivided share of a partner in the year's undistributed profits of his firm
Page 252 U. S. 231 is taxable as income of the partner although the share in the gain is not evidenced by any action taken by the firm. Why may not the stockholder's interest in the gains of the company? The law finds no difficulty in disregarding the corporate fiction whenever that is deemed necessary to attain a just result. Linn Timber Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 574. See Morawetz on Corporations, 2d ed., 227-231; Cook on Corporations, 7th ed., 663, 664. The stockholder's interest in the property of the corporation differs not fundamentally, but in form only, from the interest of a partner in the property of the firm. There is much authority for the proposition that, under our law, a partnership or joint stock company is just as distinct and palpable an entity in the idea of the law, as distinguished from the individuals composing it, as is a corporations. [Footnote 4] No reason appears, why Congress, in legislating under a grant of power so comprehensive as that authorizing the levy of an income tax, should be limited by the particular view of the relation of the stockholder to the corporation and its property which may, in the absence of legislation, have been taken by this Court. But we have no occasion to decide the question whether Congress might have taxed to the stockholder his undivided share of the corporation's earnings. For Congress has in this act limited the income tax to that share of the stockholder in the earnings which is, in effect, distributed by means of the stock dividend paid. In other words, to render the stockholder taxable, there must be both earnings made and a dividend paid. Neither earnings without dividend nor a dividend without earnings subjects the
1/9/2014
Page 252 U. S. 232 stockholder to taxation under the Revenue Act of 1916.
Fourth. The equivalency of all dividends representing profits, whether paid of all dividends in stock, is so complete that serious
question of the taxability of stock dividends would probably never have been made if Congress had undertaken to tax only those dividends which represented profits earned during the year in which the dividend was paid or in the year preceding. But this Court, construing liberally not only the constitutional grant of power but also the revenue Act of 1913, held that Congress might tax, and had taxed, to the stockholder dividends received during the year, although earned by the company long before, and even prior to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339. [Footnote 5] That rule, if indiscriminatingly applied to all stock dividends representing profits earned, might, in view of corporate practice, have worked considerable hardship and have raised serious questions. Many corporations, without legally capitalizing any part of their profits, had assigned definitely some part or all of the annual balances remaining after paying the usual cash dividends to the uses to which permanent capital is ordinarily applied. Some of the corporations doing this transferred such balances on their books to "surplus" account -- distinguishing between such permanent "surplus" and the "undivided profits" account. Other corporations, without this formality, had assumed that the annual accumulating balances carried as undistributed profits were to be treated as capital permanently invested in the business. And still others, without definite assumption of any kind, had Page 252 U. S. 233 so used undivided profits for capital purposes. To have made the revenue law apply retroactively so as to reach such accumulated profits, if and whenever it should be deemed desirable to capitalize them legally by the issue of additional stock distributed as a dividend to stockholders, would have worked great injustice. Congress endeavored in the Revenue Act of 1916 to guard against any serious hardship which might otherwise have arisen from making taxable stock dividends representing accumulated profits. It did not limit the taxability to stock dividends representing profits earned within the tax year or in the year preceding, but it did limit taxability to such dividends representing profits earned since March 1, 1913. Thereby stockholders were given notice that their share also in undistributed profits accumulating thereafter was at some time to be taxed as income. And Congress sought by 3 to discourage the postponement of distribution for the illegitimate purpose of evading liability to surtaxes.
Fifth. The decision of this Court that earnings made before the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, but paid out in cash dividend
after its adoption, were taxable as income of the stockholder involved a very liberal construction of the amendment. To hold now that earnings both made and paid out after the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be taxed as income of the stockholder, if paid in the form of a stock dividend, involves an exceedingly narrow construction of it. As said by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 446: "To construe the power so as to impair its efficacy would tend to defeat an object in the attainment of which the American public took, and justly took, that strong interest which arose from a full conviction of its necessity." No decision heretofore rendered by this Court requires us to hold that Congress, in providing for the taxation of Page 252 U. S. 234 stock dividends, exceeded the power conferred upon it by the Sixteenth Amendment. The two cases mainly relied upon to show that this was beyond the power of Congress are Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, which involved a question not of constitutional power, but of statutory construction, and Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, which involved a question arising between life tenant and remainderman. So far as concerns Towne v. Eisner, we have only to bear in mind what was there said (p. 245 U. S. 425): "But it is not necessarily true that income means the same thing in the Constitution and the [an] act." [Footnote 6] Gibbons v. Mahon is even less an authority for a narrow construction of the power to tax incomes conferred by the Sixteenth Amendment. In that case, the court was required to determine how, in the administration of an estate in the District of Columbia, a stock dividend, representing profits, received after the decedent's death, should be disposed of as between life tenant and remainderman. The question was, in essence, what shall the intention of the testator be presumed to have been? On this question, there was great diversity of opinion and practice in the courts of English-speaking countries. Three well defined rules were then competing for acceptance. Two of these involves an arbitrary rule of distribution, the third equitable apportionment. See Cook on Corporations, 7th ed., 552-558. 1. The so-called English rule, declared in 1799 by Brander v. Brander, 4 Ves. Jr. 800, that a dividend representing Page 252 U. S. 235 profits, whether in cash, stock or other property, belongs to the life tenant if it was a regular or ordinary dividend, and belongs to the remainderman if it was an extraordinary dividend. 2. The so-called Massachusetts rule, declared in 1868 by Minot v. Paine, 99 Mass. 101, that a dividend representing profits, whether regular, ordinary, or extraordinary, if in cash belongs to the life tenant, and if in stock belongs to the remainderman. 3. The so-called Pennsylvania rule, declared in 1857 by Earp's Appeal, 28 Pa. 368, that, where a stock dividend is paid, the court shall inquire into the circumstances under which the fund had been earned and accumulated out of which the dividend, whether a regular, an ordinary, or an extraordinary one, was paid. If it finds that the stock dividend was paid out of profits earned since the decedent's death, the stock dividend belongs to the life tenant; if the court finds that the stock dividend was paid from capital or from profits earned before the decedent's death, the stock dividend belongs to the remainderman. This Court adopted in Gibbons v. Mahon as the rule of administration for the District of Columbia the so-called Massachusetts rule, the opinion being delivered in 1890 by Mr. Justice Gray. Since then, the same question has come up for decision in many of the states. The so-called Massachusetts rule, although approved by this Court, has found favor in only a few states. The so-called
1/9/2014
Pennsylvania rule, on the other hand, has been adopted since by so many of the states (including New York and California) that it has come to be known as the "American rule." Whether, in view of these facts and the practical results of the operation of the two rules as shown by the experience of the 30 years which have elapsed since the decision in Gibbons v. Mahon, it might be desirable for this Court to reconsider the question there decided, as Page 252 U. S. 236 some other courts have done (see 29 Harvard Law Review 551), we have no occasion to consider in this case. For, as this Court there pointed out (p. 136 U. S. 560), the question involved was one "between the owners of successive interests in particular shares," and not, as in Bailey v. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 604, a question "between the corporation and the government, and [which] depended upon the terms of a statute carefully framed to prevent corporations from evading payment of the tax upon their earnings." We have, however, not merely argument; we have examples which should convince us that "there is no inherent, necessary and immutable reason why stock dividends should always be treated as capital." Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 533. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has steadfastly adhered, despite ever-renewed protest, to the rule that every stock dividend is, as between life tenant and remainderman, capital, and not income. But, in construing the Massachusetts Income Tax Amendment, which is substantially identical with the federal amendment, that court held that the legislature was thereby empowered to levy an income tax upon stock dividends representing profits. The courts of England have, with some relaxation, adhered to their rule that every extraordinary dividend is, as between life tenant and remainderman, to be deemed capital. But, in 1913, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that a stock dividend representing accumulated profits was taxable like an ordinary cash dividend, Swan Brewery Co., Ltd. v. Rex, [1914] A.C. 231. In dismissing the appeal, these words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia were quoted (p. 236), which show that the facts involved were identical with those in the case at bar: "Had the company distributed the 101,450 among the shareholders, and had the shareholders repaid such sums to the company as the price of the 81, 160 new shares, the duty on the 101,450 Page 252 U. S. 237 would clearly have been payable. Is not this virtually the effect of what was actually done? I think it is."
Sixth. If stock dividends representing profits are held exempt from taxation under the Sixteenth Amendment, the owners of the most
successful businesses in America will, as the facts in this case illustrate, be able to escape taxation on a large part of what is actually their income. So far as their profits are represented by stock received as dividends, they will pay these taxes not upon their income, but only upon the income of their income. That such a result was intended by the people of the United States when adopting the Sixteenth Amendment is inconceivable. Our sole duty is to ascertain their intent as therein expressed. [Footnote 7] In terse, comprehensive language befitting the Constitution, they empowered Congress "to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." They intended to include thereby everything which by reasonable understanding can fairly be regarded as income. That stock dividends representing profits are so regarded not only by the plain people, but by investors and financiers and by most of the courts of the country, is shown beyond peradventure by their acts and by their utterances. It seems to me clear, therefore, that Congress possesses the power which it exercised to make dividends representing profits taxable as income whether the medium in which the dividend is paid be cash or stock, and that it may define, as it has done, what dividends representing Page 252 U. S. 238 profits shall be deemed income. It surely is not clear that the enactment exceeds the power granted by the Sixteenth Amendment. And, as this Court has so often said, the high prerogative of declaring an act of Congress invalid should never be exercised except in a clear case. [Footnote 8] "It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt."
Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 25 U. S. 269.

MR. JUSTICE CLARKE concurs in this opinion. [Footnote 1] Moody's p. 1544; Commercial and Financial Chronicle, Vol. 94, p. 831; Vol. 98, pp. 1005, 1076. [Footnote 2] Moody's, p. 1548; Commercial and Financial Chronicle, Vol. 94, p. 771; Vol. 96, p. 1428; Vol. 97, p. 1434; Vol. 98, p. 1541. [Footnote 3] Moody's, p. 1547; Commercial and Financial Chronicle, Vol. 97, pp. 1589, 1827, 1903; Vol. 98, pp. 76, 457; Vol. 103, p. 2348. Poor's Manual of Industrials (1918), p. 2240, in giving the "comparative income account" of the company, describes the 1914 dividend as "stock dividend paid (200 percent) -- $2,000,000," and describes the 1917 dividend as "$3,000,000 special cash dividend." [Footnote 4]
See Some Judicial Myths, by Francis M. Burdick, 22 Harvard Law Review, 393, 394-396; The Firm as a Legal Person, by William
1/9/2014
Hamilton Cowles, 57 Cent.L.J. 343, 348; The Separate Estates of Non-Bankrupt Partners, by J. D. Brannan, 20 Harvard Law Review, 589-592. Compare Harvard Law Review, Vol. 7, p. 426; Vol. 14, p. 222; Vol. 17, p. 194. [Footnote 5] The hardship supposed to have resulted from such a decision has been removed in the Revenue Act of 1916 as amended, by providing in 31b that such cash dividends shall thereafter be exempt from taxation if, before they are made, all earnings made since February 28, 1913, shall have been distributed. Act Oct. 3, 1917, c. 63, 1211, 40 Stat. 338, Act Feb. 24, 1919, c. 18, 201(b), 40 Stat. 1059. [Footnote 6]
Compare Rugg, C.J., in Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 533:
"However strong such an argument might be when urged as to the interpretation of a statute, it is not of prevailing force as to the broad considerations involved in the interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution adopted under the conditions preceding and attendant upon the ratification of the forty-fourth amendment." [Footnote 7]
Compare Rugg, C.J., Tax Commissioner v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 524:
"It is a grant from the sovereign people, and not the exercise of a delegated power. It is a statement of general principles, and not a specification of details. Amendments to such a charter of government ought to be construed in the same spirit and according to the same rules as the original. It is to be interpreted as the Constitution of a state, and not as a statute or an ordinary piece of legislation. Its words must be given a construction adapted to carry into effect its purpose." [Footnote 8] "It is our duty, when required in the regular course of judicial proceedings, to declare an act of Congress void if not within the legislative power of the United States; but this declaration should never be made except in a clear case. Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt. One branch of the government cannot encroach on the domain of another without danger. The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule."
The Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 99 U. S. 718 (1878). See also Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 79 U. S. 531 (1870); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 100 U. S. 96 (1879). See American Doctrine of Constitutional Law by James B. Thayer, 7 Harvard
Law Review 129, 142. "With the exception of the extraordinary decree rendered in the Dred Scott case, . . . all of the acts or the portions of the acts of Congress invalidated by the courts before 1868 related to the organization of courts. Denying the power of Congress to make notes legal tender seems to be the first departure from this rule." Haines, American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, p. 288. The first legal tender decision was overruled in part two years later (1870), Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, and again in 1883, Legal Tender Case, 110 U. S. 421.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources. Daily Opinion Summaries Subscribe to Justia's FREE Daily Newsletter Opinion Summaries
Subscribe Now
Find a Lawyer Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free full directory profile listing Ask a Lawyer Question: Add question details Additional Details: About Legal Answers Copyright Justia :: Company :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Contact Us
28 / 41
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
1/9/2014
Not a Legal Professional? Visit our consumer site Register or Log-In Search FindLaw Search Cases & Codes Practice Management Jobs & Careers Legal News Blogs Service Providers Forms Law Technology Lawyer Marketing Corporate Counsel Law Students JusticeMail Newsletters FindLaw SUPREME COURT
View enhanced case on Westlaw KeyCite this case on Westlaw Cases citing this case: Supreme Court Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/340/590.html
U.S. Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. LEWIS, 340 U.S. 590 (1951)
340 U.S. 590 UNITED STATES v. LEWIS. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 347. Argued March 2, 1951. Decided March 26, 1951.
In his 1944 income tax return, respondent reported $22,000 received that year as an employee's bonus, which he claimed in good faith and used unconditionally as his own. In subsequent litigation, it was decided that the bonus had been computed improperly; and, under compulsion of a judgment, respondent returned $11,000 to his employer in 1946. He then sued in the Court of Claims for refund of an alleged overpayment of his 1944 income tax. Held: Under the "claim of right" doctrine announced in North American Oil v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 , the entire $22,000 was income in 1944, and respondent was not entitled to recompute his 1944 tax. Pp. 590592. 117 Ct. Cl. 336, 91 F. Supp. 1017, reversed. The case is stated in the opinion. The judgment below is reversed, p. 592. Ellis N. Slack argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Caudle and I. Henry Kutz. Sigmund W. David argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Lewis brought this action in the Court of Claims seeking a refund of an alleged overpayment of his 1944 income tax. The facts found by the Court of Claims are: In his 1944 income tax return, respondent reported about $22,000 which he had received that year as an employee's bonus. As a result of subsequent litigation in a state court, however, it was decided that respondent's bonus had been improperly computed; under compulsion of the state court's judgment he returned approximately $11,000 to his employer. Until payment [340 U.S. 590, 591] of the judgment in 1946, respondent had at all times claimed and used the full $22,000 unconditionally as his own, in the good faith though "mistaken" belief that he was entitled to the whole bonus. On the foregoing facts the Government's position is that respondent's 1944 tax should not be recomputed, but that respondent should have deducted the $11,000 as a loss in his 1946 tax return. See G. C. M. 16730, XV-1 Cum. Bull. 179 (1936). The Court of Claims, however, relying on its own case, Greenwald v. United States, 102 Ct. Cl. 272, 57 F. Supp. 569, held that the excess bonus received "under a mistake of fact" was not income in 1944 and ordered a refund based on a recalculation of that year's tax. 117 Ct. Cl. 336, 91 F. Supp. 1017. We granted certiorari, 340 U.S. 903 , because this holding conflicted with many decisions of the courts of appeals,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=340&invol=590 29 / 41
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
1/9/2014
see, e. g., Haberkorn v. United States, 173 F.2d 587, and with principles announced in North American Oil v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 . In the North American Oil case we said: "If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent." 286 U.S. at 424. Nothing in this language permits an exception merely because a taxpayer is "mistaken" as to the validity of his claim. Nor has the "claim of right" doctrine been impaired, as the Court of Claims stated, by Freuler v. Helvering, 291 U.S. 35 , or Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 . The Freuler case involved an entirely different section of the Internal Revenue Code, and its holding is inapplicable here. 291 U.S. at 43. And in Commissioner v. Wilcox, supra, we held that receipts from embezzlement did not constitute income, distinguishing North American Oil on the ground [340 U.S. 590, 592] that an embezzler asserts no "bona fide legal or equitable claim." 327 U.S. at 408. Income taxes must be paid on income received (or accrued) during an annual accounting period. Cf. I. R. C., 41, 42; and see Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359, 363 . The "claim of right" interpretation of the tax laws has long been used to give finality to that period, and is now deeply rooted in the federal tax system. See cases collected in 2 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, 12.103. We see no reason why the Court should depart from this well-settled interpretation merely because it results in an advantage or disadvantage to a taxpayer. * Reversed. [ Footnote * ] It has been suggested that it would be more "equitable" to reopen respondent's 1944 tax return. While the suggestion might work to the advantage of this taxpayer, it could not be adopted as a general solution because, in many cases, the three-year statute of limitations would preclude recovery. I. R. C., 322 (b). MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. The question in this case is not whether the bonus had to be included in 1944 income for purposes of the tax. Plainly it should have been because the taxpayer claimed it as of right. Some years later, however, it was judicially determined that he had no claim to the bonus. The question is whether he may then get back the tax which he paid on the money. Many inequities are inherent in the income tax. We multiply them needlessly by nice distinctions which have no place in the practical administration of the law. If the refund were allowed, the integrity of the taxable year would not be violated. The tax would be paid when due; but the Government would not be permitted to maintain the unconscionable position that it can keep the tax after it is shown that payment was made on money which was not income to the taxpayer. [340 U.S. 590, 593]
FindLaw Career Center

Search for Law Jobs:
Post a Job | View More Jobs Ads by FindLaw Research the law Manage your practice Manage your career News and commentary Get Legal Forms About us Find Us On Cases & Codes / Opinion Summaries / Sample Business Contracts / Research an Attorney or Law Firm Law Technology / Law Practice Management / Law Firm Marketing Services / Corporate Counsel Center Legal Career Job Search / Online CLE / Law Student Resources Legal News Headlines / Law Commentary / Featured Documents / Newsletters / Blogs / RSS Feeds Legal Forms for Your Practice Company History / Media Relations / Contact Us / Privacy / Advertising / Jobs Copyright 2014, Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=340&invol=590
30 / 41
G.R. No. 78953
1/9/2014
Today is Thursday, January 09, 2014
powered by
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 78953 July 31, 1991 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
MELCHOR J. JAVIER, JR. and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
Elison G. Natividad for accused-appellant.
SARMIENTO, J.:p
Central in this controversy is the issue as to whether or not a taxpayer who merely states as a footnote in his income tax return that a sum of money that he erroneously received and already spent is the subject of a pending litigation and there did not declare it as income is liable to pay the 50% penalty for filing a fraudulent return. This question is the subject of the petition for review before the Court of the portion of the Decision 1
dated July 27, 1983 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 3393, entitled, "Melchor J. Javier, Jr. vs. Ruben B. Ancheta, in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue," which orders the deletion of the 50% surcharge from Javier's deficiency income tax assessment on his income for 1977. The respondent CTA in a Resolution 2 dated May 25, 1987, denied the Commissioner's Motion for Reconsideration 3 and Motion for New Trial 4 on the deletion of the 50% surcharge assessment or imposition. The pertinent facts as are accurately stated in the petition of private respondent Javier in the CTA and incorporated in the assailed decision now under review, read as follows: xxx xxx xxx 2. That on or about June 3, 1977, Victoria L. Javier, the wife of the petitioner (private respondent herein), received from the Prudential Bank and Trust Company in Pasay City the amount of US$999,973.70 remitted by her sister, Mrs. Dolores Ventosa, through some banks in the United States, among which is Mellon Bank, N.A. 3. That on or about June 29, 1977, Mellon Bank, N.A. filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Regional Trial Court), (docketed as Civil Case No. 26899), against the petitioner (private respondent herein), his wife and other defendants, claiming that its remittance of US$1,000,000.00 was a clerical error and should have been US$1,000.00 only, and praying that the excess amount of US$999,000.00 be returned on the ground that the defendants are trustees of an implied trust for the benefit of Mellon Bank with the clear, immediate, and continuing duty to return the said amount from the moment it was received. 4. That on or about November 5, 1977, the City Fiscal of Pasay City filed an Information with the then Circuit Criminal Court (docketed as CCC-VII-3369-P.C.) charging the petitioner (private respondent herein) and his wife with the crime of estafa, alleging that they misappropriated, misapplied, and converted to their own personal use and benefit the amount of US$999,000.00 which they received under an implied trust for the benefit of Mellon Bank and as a result of the mistake in the remittance by the latter. 5. That on March 15, 1978, the petitioner (private respondent herein) filed his Income Tax Return for the taxable year 1977 showing a gross income of P53,053.38 and a net income of P48,053.88 and stating in the footnote of the return that "Taxpayer was recipient of some money received from abroad which he presumed to be a gift but turned out to be an error and is now subject of litigation." 6. That on or before December 15, 1980, the petitioner (private respondent herein) received a letter from the acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated November 14, 1980, together with income assessment notices for the years 1976 and 1977, demanding that petitioner (private respondent herein) pay on or before December 15, 1980 the amount of P1,615.96 and P9,287,297.51 as deficiency assessments for the years 1976 and 1977 respectively. . . . 7. That on December 15, 1980, the petitioner (private respondent herein) wrote the Bureau of Internal Revenue that he was paying the deficiency income assessment for the year 1976 but denying that he had any undeclared income for the year 1977 and requested that the assessment for 1977 be made to await final court decision on the case filed against him for filing an allegedly fraudulent return. . . . 8. That on November 11, 1981, the petitioner (private respondent herein) received from Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue Romulo Villa a letter dated October 8, 1981 stating in reply to his December 15, 1980 letterprotest that "the amount of Mellon Bank's erroneous remittance which you were able to dispose, is definitely taxable." . . . 5 The Commissioner also imposed a 50% fraud penalty against Javier. Disagreeing, Javier filed an appeal 6 before the respondent Court of Tax Appeals on December 10, 1981. The respondent CTA, after the proper proceedings, rendered the challenged decision. We quote the concluding portion:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jul1991/gr_78953_1991.html
31 / 41
G.R. No. 78953
1/9/2014
We note that in the deficiency income tax assessment under consideration, respondent (petitioner here) further requested petitioner (private respondent here) to pay 50% surcharge as provided for in Section 72 of the Tax Code, in addition to the deficiency income tax of P4,888,615.00 and interest due thereon. Since petitioner (private respondent) filed his income tax return for taxable year 1977, the 50% surcharge was imposed, in all probability, by respondent (petitioner) because he considered the return filed false or fraudulent. This additional requirement, to our mind, is much less called for because petitioner (private respondent), as stated earlier, reflected in as 1977 return as footnote that "Taxpayer was recipient of some money received from abroad which he presumed to be gift but turned out to be an error and is now subject of litigation." From this, it can hardly be said that there was actual and intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to by petitioner (private respondent) in order to induce the Government to give up some legal right, or the latter, due to a false return, was placed at a disadvantage so as to prevent its lawful agents from proper assessment of tax liabilities. (Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals, L-20569, August 23, 1974, 56 (sic) SCRA 519), because petitioner literally "laid his cards on the table" for respondent to examine. Error or mistake of fact or law is not fraud. (Insular Lumber vs. Collector, L-7100, April 28, 1956.). Besides, Section 29 is not too plain and simple to understand. Since the question involved in this case is of first impression in this jurisdiction, under the circumstances, the 50% surcharge imposed in the deficiency assessment should be deleted. 7 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, not satisfied with the respondent CTA's ruling, elevated the matter to us, by the present petition, raising the main issue as to: WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR THE 50% FRAUD PENALTY? 8 On the other hand, Javier candidly stated in his Memorandum, 9 that he "did not appeal the decision which held him liable for the basic deficiency income tax (excluding the 50% surcharge for fraud)." However, he submitted in the same memorandum "that the issue may be raised in the case not for the purpose of correcting or setting aside the decision which held him liable for deficiency income tax, but only to show that there is no basis for the imposition of the surcharge." This subsequent disavowal therefore renders moot and academic the posturings articulated in as Comment 10 on the non-taxability of the amount he erroneously received and the bulk of which he had already disbursed. In any event, an appeal at that time (of the filing of the Comments) would have been already too late to be seasonable. The petitioner, through the office of the Solicitor General, stresses that: Under the then Section 72 of the Tax Code (now Section 248 of the 1988 National Internal Revenue Code), a taxpayer who files a false return is liable to pay the fraud penalty of 50% of the tax due from him or of the deficiency tax in case payment has been made on the basis of the return filed before the discovery of the falsity or fraud. We are persuaded considerably by the private respondent's contention that there is no fraud in the filing of the return and agree fully with the Court of Tax Appeals' interpretation of Javier's notation on his income tax return filed on March 15, 1978 thus: "Taxpayer was the recipient of some money from abroad which he presumed to be a gift but turned out to be an error and is now subject of litigation that it was an "error or mistake of fact or law" not constituting fraud, that such notation was practically an invitation for investigation and that Javier had literally "laid his cards on the table." 13 In Aznar v. Court of Tax Appeals, 14 fraud in relation to the filing of income tax return was discussed in this manner: . . . The fraud contemplated by law is actual and not constructive. It must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some legal right. Negligence, whether slight or gross, is not equivalent to the fraud with intent to evade the tax contemplated by law. It must amount to intentional wrong-doing with the sole object of avoiding the tax. It necessarily follows that a mere mistake cannot be considered as fraudulent intent, and if both petitioner and respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue committed mistakes in making entries in the returns and in the assessment, respectively, under the inventory method of determining tax liability, it would be unfair to treat the mistakes of the petitioner as tainted with fraud and those of the respondent as made in good faith. Fraud is never imputed and the courts never sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most, create only suspicion and the mere understatement of a tax is not itself proof of fraud for the purpose of tax evasion. 15 A "fraudulent return" is always an attempt to evade a tax, but a merely "false return" may not be, Rick v. U.S., App. D.C., 161 F. 2d 897, 898. 16 In the case at bar, there was no actual and intentional fraud through willful and deliberate misleading of the government agency concerned, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, headed by the herein petitioner. The government was not induced to give up some legal right and place itself at a disadvantage so as to prevent its lawful agents from proper assessment of tax liabilities because Javier did not conceal anything. Error or mistake of law is not fraud. The petitioner's zealousness to collect taxes from the unearned windfall to Javier is highly commendable. Unfortunately, the imposition of the fraud penalty in this case is not justified by the extant facts. Javier may be guilty of swindling charges, perhaps even for greed by spending most of the money he received, but the records lack a clear showing of fraud committed because he did not conceal the fact that he had received an amount of money although it was a "subject of litigation." As ruled by respondent Court of Tax Appeals, the 50% surcharge imposed as fraud penalty by the petitioner against the private respondent in the deficiency assessment should be deleted. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision appealed from the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur. Paras, J., took no part.
Footnotes 1 Annex "A", Petition, Presiding Judge Amante Finer, Ponente, Associate Judge Alex Z. Reyes, Concurring; and Judge Constants C. Roaquin, Concurring and Dissenting. 2 Annex "D", Petition.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jul1991/gr_78953_1991.html 32 / 41
G.R. No. 78953
1/9/2014
3 Annex "B", Petition. 4 Annex "C", Petition. 5 Court of Tax Appeals Decision, Case No. 3393, promulgated on July 27, 1983, 2-3; Rollo, 35-36. 6 Annex "F", Petition. 7 Court of Tax Appeals Decision, supra; rollo, 47-49. 8 Petition, 7; rollo, 22. 9 Respondents' Memorandum, rollo, 156. 10 Rollo, 120. 11 Id., 25-26. 12 Respondents' Memorandum, 10-11, rollo, 164-165. 13 Rollo, 47-48. 14 L-20569, promulgated on August 23, 1974, 58 SCRA 519. 15 Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, L-13203, promulgated on January 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 160. 16 WORDS AND PHRASES; (1958 ed.), Vol. 17A, 210. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation xxx xxx xxx The record however is not ambivalent, as the record clearly shows that private respondent is self-convinced, and so acted, that he is the beneficial owner, and of which reason is liable to tax. Put another way, the studied insinuation that private respondent may not be the beneficial owner of the money or income flowing to him as enhanced by the studied claim that the amount is "subject of litigation" is belied by the record and clearly exposed as a fraudulent ploy, as witness what transpired upon receipt of the amount. Here, it will be noted that the excess in the amount erroneously remitted by MELLON BANK for the amount of private respondent's wife was $999,000.00 after opening a dollar account with Prudential Bank in the amount of $999,993.70, private respondent and his wife, with haste and dispatch, within a span of eleven (11) electric days, specifically from June 3 to June 14, 1977, effected a total massive withdrawal from the said dollar account in the sum of $975,000.00 or P7,020,000.00. . . . 11 In reply, the private respondent argues: xxx xxx xxx The petitioner contends that the private respondent committed fraud by not declaring the "mistaken remittance" in his income tax return and by merely making a footnote thereon which read: "Taxpayer was the recipient of some money from abroad which he presumed to be a gift but turned out to be an error and is now subject of litigation." It is respectfully submitted that the said return was not fraudulent. The footnote was practically an invitation to the petitioner to make an investigation, and to make the proper assessment. The rule in fraud cases is that the proof "must be clear and convincing" (Griffiths v. Comm., 50 F [2d] 782), that is, it must be stronger than the "mere preponderance of evidence" which would be sufficient to sustain a judgment on the issue of correctness of the deficiency itself apart from the fraud penalty. (Frank A. Neddas, 40 BTA 672). The following circumstances attendant to the case at bar show that in filing the questioned return, the private respondent was guided, not by that "willful and deliberate intent to prevent the Government from making a proper assessment" which constitute fraud, but by an honest doubt as to whether or not the "mistaken remittance" was subject to tax. First, this Honorable Court will take judicial notice of the fact that so-called "million dollar case" was given very, very wide publicity by media; and only one who is not in his right mind would have entertained the idea that the BIR would not make an assessment if the amount in question was indeed subject to the income tax. Second, as the respondent Court ruled, "the question involved in this case is of first impression in this jurisdiction" (See p. 15 of Annex "A" of the Petition). Even in the United States, the authorities are not unanimous in holding that similar receipts are subject to the income tax. It should be noted that the decision in the Rutkin case is a five-to-four decision; and in the very case before this Honorable Court, one out of three Judges of the respondent Court was of the opinion that the amount in question is not taxable. Thus, even without the footnote, the failure to declare the "mistaken remittance" is not fraudulent. Third, when the private respondent filed his income tax return on March 15, 1978 he was being sued by the Mellon Bank for the return of the money, and was being prosecuted by the Government for estafa committed allegedly by his failure to return the money and by converting it to his personal benefit. The basic tax amounted to P4,899,377.00 (See p. 6 of the Petition) and could not have been paid without using part of the mistaken remittance. Thus, it was not unreasonable for the private respondent to simply state in his income tax return that the amount received was still under litigation. If he had paid the tax, would that not constitute estafa for using the funds for his own personal benefit? and would the Government refund it to him if the courts ordered him to refund the money to the Mellon Bank? 12 xxx xxx xxx
Lawphil Main Menu

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jul1991/gr_78953_1991.html 33 / 41
G.R. No. 78953
1/9/2014
Constitution Statutes Jurisprudence Judicial Issuances Executive Issuances Treatise Legal Link
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jul1991/gr_78953_1991.html
34 / 41
HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com
1/9/2014
Search Home Search Featured Decisions Leagle Kontact About Us Contact US Share On Facebook Share With Twitter Share On Google+ Comments (0) Email This Page Print This Page View Case Cited Cases Citing Case
HERDER v. HELVERINGNos. 7179, 7180.

106 F.2d 153 (1939)
HERDER et al. v. HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue. HERDER v. SAME.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Decided June 26, 1939. Writ of Certiorari Denied December 4, 1939. Camden R. McAtee, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners. James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Norman D. Keller and W. Croft Jennings, Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent. Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and VINSON, Associate Justices.
Writ of Certiorari Denied December 4, 1939. See 60 S.Ct. 262, 84 L.Ed. ___. VINSON, Associate Justice. Two petitions for review of United States Board of Tax Appeals redeterminations of separate income tax liabilities are consolidated herein. The Board determined a deficiency against George Herder, deceased, for the period January 1 to March 29, 1934, the date of his death, (to which we will refer hereinafter as the first period) and a deficiency against his wife, Mary Herder, for the calendar year 1934. The decedent, George Herder, and his wife Mary Herder, resided in the State of Texas and owned community property located there which produced income during the first period. The applicable Texas statutes vest title to the community property in the husband and wife in equal parts, but, during coverture, the husband has the exclusive power of control over the property as long as he discharges his obligation as the head of the family.1 The income from the community is divided equally between them; each may make separate returns of one-half of the income, with an equal division of the allowable deductions.2 The questions presented for our consideration are: 1. The disallowance of certain claimed deductions for bad debts. 2. The proper classification of proceeds from an insurance policy. 3. The proper adjusted cost basis of the property destroyed by fire. We will consider them in the order outlined.
The Bad Debts

George Herder was in complete control of the community property. It is agreed, and so found by the Board, that, during his lifetime, he kept regular books of account for the community; that they were single entry books, kept on a cash receipts and disbursement basis; that, from time to time, bad debts were charged off by entering credits for the amounts thereof; that no reserve for bad debts was set up on the books; and, that the debts in question were never charged off on the books of account by George Herder in his life time. The bad debts involved originally aggregated $29,975.56. In the hearing before the Board, petitioners abandoned the claim for
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1939259106F2d153_1229 35 / 41
1/9/2014
deduction of the debt of J. W. Gates amounting to $1,861.22 as it had been charged off by George Herder in a prior taxable period. The record shows, and the Board finds, that certain other claimed bad debts, aggregating $2,521.28 became worthless in a prior taxable period and were disallowed as deductions for this reason. We affirm the Board in this respect. Avery v. Com'r, 5 Cir., 22 F.2d 6, 55 A.L.R. 1277. Thus the bad debts we consider total $25,593.06, of which one-half, or $12,796.53, is claimed to be a deductible item to George Herder, deceased, in the first period, and an equal amount claimed to be deductible in the return of Mary Herder for the taxable year 1934. The return of the estate of George Herder, deceased, for the period March 30 to December 31, 1934, is not before us.
The George Herder Return

The Board found that the debts became worthless upon the death of George Herder because of their peculiar nature and the discontinuance of the financing of the debtors due to his death. Sec. 23 (k) of the Revenue Act of 1934 reads, in part, as follows: "Sec. [] 23. Deductions from gross income. In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: "* * * "(k) Bad debts. Debts ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the taxable year * * *." 26 U.S.C.A. 23(k). Until his death George Herder was on a cash receipts and disbursement basis, and kept books of account. During prior years, from time to time, he charged off worthless debts by entries on the books. In such a case debts must not only be ascertained to be worthless within the taxable year, but they must be charged off within the taxable year.3 The Board found that these essentials were not present in his case; that there was no charge off on the books, and that the debts did not become worthless within that taxable period. Petitioners however maintain that the enactment of secs. 42 and 43 of the Revenue Act of 19344 eliminates the application of sec. 23 (k) herein; that it removed George Herder from his position as a taxpayer upon a cash receipts and disbursement basis, and placed him upon an accrual basis for the taxable period involved; and, that the books of account actually kept by him are not to be considered. In considering the contention of petitioners we must consider the legislative history of secs. 42 and 43. From its very terms, and as is clearly expressed in the reports of the congressional committees5 handling the legislation, it is evident that sec. 42 found its way into the tax law for the purpose of preventing ordinary income from escaping taxation. Previously, whenever a taxpayer on a cash receipts and disbursement basis died, income accrued up to his death passed to the estate as a part of the corpus, escaping the income tax mill altogether. Sec. 42, enacted to cover the situation, "includes" in taxable income "for the taxable period in which falls the date of his [taxpayer's] death, amounts accrued up to the date of his death". Thus the taxable income for such period is the income of the taxpayer actually received, plus the income accrued but not received. The objective of Congress, which must always be kept in mind, is that the net income of the taxpayer, prior to his death, bear the burden of income taxes, regardless of his tax basis, or whether he kept books, and that the income accrued should be added to the income actually received. On the other hand it is evident that in subjecting such additional income to taxation, Congress intended to permit additional deductions to such taxpayers. Sec. 43 makes allowable "deductions * * * for the taxable period in which falls the date of his [taxpayer's] death, amounts accrued up to the date of his death * * *." This could only mean such deductions that were not allowable to a taxpayer on a cash basis prior to the enactment of sec. 43. The purpose of Congress was to see reflected in the return of such decedent credits and deductions which had accrued, whether reflected on the books of the taxpayer or not. It required sec. 43 to remove what would be an otherwise unjust burden resulting from sec. 42. There is nothing contained in secs. 42 and 43 indicating that the provisions in sec. 23 (k) relating to the ascertainment of a debt to be worthless within the taxable year and its charge-off are dispensed with. These two requirements are embedded in the tax laws and are necessary to be met before bad debts become deductible items. In this view, we cannot agree with petitioners that sec. 23 (k) should be eliminated in the computation of the George Herder return, and we cannot follow them in their desire for such elimination, since it is solely through sec. 23 (k) that bad debts are allowed to be deducted from gross income; nor can we conclude that secs. 42 and 43 abolish the books kept by the taxpayer. However, we can agree that the tax basis of George Herder was modified as a result of his death. In his lifetime he was upon a cash receipts and disbursement basis, keeping books of account. In this position he had until the last day of the taxable year in which to determine the worthlessness of the debts and to charge them off. He died within the taxable year without having done either. Secs. 42 and 43 changed his basis. The change was not of his choosing. He died and the law changed it for him. Sec. 23 (k) applies to a taxpayer regardless of his basis. The debts must become worthless within the taxable year. The worthlessness of the debt is a fact to be determined not the opinion of the taxpayer.6 This essential was met by the personal representatives of George Herder. The correctness of their conclusion as to their worthlessness within the taxable year is here admitted. The Board so found. Thus sec. 23 (k) in this respect has been complied with. We come to the charge-off. George Herder did not charge these debts off the books which he kept. He could not do so because they were not worthless to him. If the debts had actually become worthless during the first period, his failure to charge them off on the books would not, in our opinion, have precluded their deduction from gross income. In such a situation, they would have become an accrued deduction which sec. 43 permits to be reflected in the taxable income, and the charge-off within his taxable period, required by sec. 23 (k) would be made by operation of law. But the debts involved in the present case were not worthless within the taxable period. It is admitted, and found by the Board that they became worthless only upon the death of George Herder. Consequently, they cannot be accrued as a deduction under sec. 43 and, in our opinion, may not be deducted in the George Herder return. We therefore affirm the Board's determination in this respect.
1/9/2014
The Mary Herder Return

Mary Herder made her tax return for the full calendar year 1934. What we have said in respect of the worthless debts in connection with the return of George Herder for the first period equally controls Mary Herder for the same period. The books for the community were kept by George Herder, and throughout the years debts were ascertained to be worthless and charged off. George Herder fixed the basis of the community while it existed and, as there is nothing in the record indicating that Mary Herder had income other than that received from the community, her basis for the period prior to his death, was determined by the basis fixed for the community. However, upon the death of George Herder the community terminated and Mary Herder became a new taxpaying personality, with the right to elect upon what basis she would make her returns, as well as to determine whether or not she would keep books. In her new status deductibility of the debts involved depends upon whether she kept books. The Board found that after George Herder's death his books were kept by R. L. Williams "for the executors of the estate of the decedent and for Mary Herder"; that "no other books of account were kept by or for the decedent, the executors of his estate, or Mary Herder". Whenever there is substantial evidence to support a finding of the Board upon a question of fact, its decision of that question is conclusive upon review.7 In our opinion, there is no evidence in the record before us that Mary Herder kept any books of account for this or any period, nor can we find any evidence supporting the finding that any books were kept for her. R. L. Williams married a daughter of George and Mary Herder. He was also the owner of a one-third interest with George Herder in the partnership operating a rice mill. He managed the rice mill and in this connection kept books for the partnership. He did not keep books for George Herder, or for the community while it existed. Because of its pertinence, we set out in the margin his testimony relating to his bookkeeping.8 The accountant, Moore, testified that he "prepared his [George Herder's] income returns until his death" and "prepared the income tax returns after his death for him, for his estate, and those of Mrs. Herder for several prior years." We cannot conclude that this evidence supports the Board's findings that Mary Herder kept books, or that Williams, authorized or unauthorized, kept books for Mary Herder. The record does not disclose who prepared the return for 1934, but, assuming that Mary Herder's return was based upon information disclosed in the books kept by Williams, there still is no evidence in the record that she, who had a right of election in respect thereto, kept books of account upon which her personal return was based. Appeal of Brander, 3 B.T.A. 231, 235. It follows that, if she kept no books of account, or if none were authorized to be kept for her, there was no way in which she could show an actual charge off of the bad debts upon books, nor was there any responsibility under the statute for her so doing. All required of her would be to claim their deduction upon her tax return for the period in which the debts became worthless, which she did. There is no contention by the Commissioner that such debts may not be deducted in the tax return for the period in which they are so ascertained to be worthless. They are so deductible.9 Therefore, we are of the opinion that one-half of the amount of the debts involved, to-wit, $12,796.53 is properly deductible by Mary Herder in her return for the taxable year 1934.
The Proceeds of the Insurance Policy

On January 15, 1934, prior to the death of George Herder, fire destroyed the milling property owned by the partnership. For this loss, the partnership received, in settlement of insurance claims under policies carried by it, $50,000. Such amount was immediately distributed to the partners, being pro-rated in accordance with their respective interest in the partnership, namely, two-thirds to George Herder, and one-third to R. L. Williams. The Board found that George Herder received $33,333.67 under such distribution and that $19,199.50 thereof represented his portion of the total amount received by the partnership in excess of the adjusted cost basis of the property (original cost, plus improvements, less accrued depreciation) at the time of its destruction, (hereinafter referred to as proceeds) and that such proceeds were taxable as ordinary income to the community.10 The personal representatives of George Herder, deceased, maintain (a) that it is not income taxable to the community, but that it is income taxable to the estate of George Herder; and, further (in which Mary Herder as an individual joins) that (b) the proceeds received is not ordinary income, but is a capital gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset and should be taxed as such. (a) In contending that the proceeds received was not taxable in the first period, the personal representatives rely upon sec. 112 (f).11 They urge that the record shows, and the Board finds, that George Herder had definite intentions, from the time he received such proceeds until his death, to reinvest the whole amount thereof in similar property, thereby coming within the provisions of sec. 112 (f), in which event no gain or loss would occur in such taxable period. They urge that the Board's determination as to the disposition of the proceeds received by R. L. Williams, a member of the partnership, bears them out in this contention. The Board found that Williams had similar intentions of reinvesting his portion of the proceeds in similar property; that he made bona fide efforts so to reinvest, but did not actually reinvest such proceeds until a date 14 months subsequent to receiving it. The Commissioner had refused Williams the application of sec. 112 (f) to such funds; the Board found that the section should apply, His return is not before us. A very persuasive argument is presented that inasmuch as the Board permitted the benefits of sec. 112 (f) to extend to Williams, they should likewise apply the same treatment to George Herder, deceased, who had like intentions of reinvestment, but was prevented from actually doing so because of his death. The only authority cited in this connection is Buckhardt v. Commissioner, 32 B.T.A. 1272, in which actual reinvestment was made. If, as we view it, the proceeds is income to the taxpayer prior to his death, it is taxable in the period when it is received, and can only
1/9/2014
be relieved from taxation by compliance with sec. 112 (f), that is by actual reinvestment in similar property as required thereunder. The Board's action in applying sec. 112 (f) and its benefits to Williams in the present case and to Buckhardt in the case cited above cannot have any effect on the taxability of George Herder's income in the absence of any reinvestment at all. Sec. 112 (f) is a liberal provision which may remove such income from a taxable status within the period when it was received. It is based upon the theory that taxation is deferred until a subsequent date, but only upon condition that there is a reinvestment of such income in similar property, which takes the basis for gain or loss of the property involuntarily converted. We are of the opinion that the proceeds of the insurance was taxable income received in the prior period, and, not having been reinvested, sec. 112 (f) cannot be availed of to avoid payment of taxes in the period the income was received. Upon the death of George Herder, the proceeds constituted a portion of his estate and could not be taxed as income derived by the estate. (b) Petitioners very strongly urge that the taxable income growing out of the involuntary conversion of the mill, should not be, in any event, treated as ordinary income, but should be treated as a capital gain and subjected to taxation under sec. 117.12 They contend that the definition of "sale or exchange" of the capital gain and loss section of the statute is widened by sec. 117 (f),13 and that under its provisions liquidated insurance proceeds come within its terms. They argue that "the payment of $50,000 herein is only incidentally according to the terms of insurance policies, and is in fact a payment of a liquidated claim arising upon occurrence of the total loss by fire." Thus it is their theory that the present case "is to be decided in its actual aspect as involving a `sale or exchange' giving rise to a capital gain." It is obvious that the proceeds of the fire insurance policy did not result from either a sale or exchange of property.14 This payment is the satisfaction of a contract of insurance indemnifying against contingent loss by fire.15 It is true that in the Revenue Act of 1934 new language found its way into the law under sec. 117 (f) broadening the scope of the capital gain and loss section, but this language, as we read it, is not helpful to the petitioners in the present situation. It seems to us to be clear that sec. 117 (f) cannot refer to a fire insurance policy, even when a liquidated demand is paid under it. The petitioners would construe the terms of the statute "other evidences of indebtedness issued by any corporation * * * with interest coupons or in registered form" to include a fire insurance policy for the reason that in case of total loss the policy by statute "shall be held and considered to be a liquidated demand against the company for the full amount of such policy." Vernon's Ann.Civ.Texas Statutes, Art. 4929. Taking this section, 117 (f), in its entirety, as we must, we are unable to agree with them. The fire insurance policy, in our opinion, is not an evidence of indebtedness contemplated by this section. It would seem to us, from its position in the text, that "other evidences of indebtedness" refers to something more closely akin to bonds, debentures, notes and certificates. Were the language of this section ambiguous, the report of the committee handling the legislation may be used in a search for "the voice of Congress."16 As the insurance policy does not come within the purview of sec. 117, or subdivision (f) thereof, the Board properly treated the proceeds from it as ordinary income and not as capital gain.
Adjusted Cost Basis

Further the petitioners maintain that whether the proceeds are taxable as ordinary income to the community or should be treated under the capital gain section, the Commissioner and the Board have erred in their method of computation in determining the adjusted cost basis of the property. They make three contentions in their effort to show error: 1. That certain expenditures treated as ordinary expenses should be considered as capital expenditures. 2. That failing to take amounts allowable as deductions for depreciation on their returns for prior years, these expenditures should be permitted to off-set depreciation, and no depreciation should be considered in computing the adjusted cost basis. 3. And, further, that the marketable value should be used in a computation of the adjusted cost basis, rather than the original cost of the property, plus additions. It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the commissioner's determination is invalid.17 This rule has often been applied in controversies over the proper cost basis in the computation of gains from sales and exchanges of property.18 In this instance, the taxpayer has not pointed out the specific items improperly charged to expenses, and in our opinion, has failed to support this burden.19 However, notwithstanding the petitioners failure in this respect, we have made a careful analysis of the method used in the determination of the adjusted cost basis to the taxpayer of the property involved, and find that proper credits have been allowed for all capital expenditures during such period; that the amounts expended for repairs, maintenance and similar items, now sought to be capitalized by the petitioners, were properly considered as ordinary expenses, and deducted as such in their prior annual returns. 2. The adjusted cost basis is defined by the statute to be: "Sec. [] 113. Adjusted basis for determining gain or loss.
******
"(b) Adjusted basis. The adjusted basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property, whenever acquired, shall be the basis determined under subsection (a), adjusted as hereinafter provided. "(1) General Rule. Proper adjustment in respect of the property shall in all cases be made
******
"(B) * * * for exhaustion, wear and tear * * * to the extent allowed (but not less than the amount allowable) under this Act or prior income-tax laws. * * *" (Italics supplied) 26 U.S.C.A. 113(b).
1/9/2014
Subsection (a) referred to in the above provides "The basis of property shall be the cost of such property," with exceptions not material. (Italics supplied) In determining the adjusted cost basis of property sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of it is immaterial whether petitioners availed themselves of allowable deductions for depreciation in their prior tax returns. Failing to take depreciation when it occurs in the prior taxable years does not prevent its inclusion in the determination of the adjusted cost basis of the property.20 3. The petitioners point out that the marketable value of the property at the time of its destruction was $75,000 and that it is from this sum that the depreciation, if any, should be deducted. Again we turn to the statute. It is not the marketable value of this property that enters into the computation, it is the original cost, plus additions that must be used. Sec. 113 (b), supra. Such original cost, plus additions to capital, less depreciation results in the statutory term the adjusted cost basis. In this case the amount received under the fire insurance policy was $50,000. The adjusted cost basis, taking into consideration the amount received by the partnership for the salvage was properly found by the Board to be $21,200.74. The difference between these two sums, to wit, $28,799.26 reflects the taxable realization on the transaction. We affirm the Board in this respect. No. 7179 affirmed. No. 7180 affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the United States Board of Tax Appeals for proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
FootNotes
1. Vernon's Texas Civ.St.1936, Art. 4619, sec. 1; Stone v. Jackson, 109 Tex. 385, 210 S.W. 953; Martin v. McAllister, 94 Tex. 567, 63 S.W. 624, 56 L.R.A. 585; Shaw v. Shaw, Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 173; Davis v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W. 775. 2. Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122, 51 S.Ct. 62, 75 L.Ed. 249; Stewart v. Com'r, 5 Cir., 95 F.2d 821; Johnson v. Com'r, 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 952. 3. Fairless v. Com'r, 6 Cir., 67 F.2d 475; American Cigar Co. v. Com'r, 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 425, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 699, 54 S.Ct. 209, 78 L.Ed. 601; Continental Pipe Mfg. Co. v. Poe, 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 694; Cross v. Com'r, 9 Cir., 54 F.2d 781. 4. "Sec. [] 42. Period in which items of gross income included "* * * In the case of the death of a taxpayer there shall be included in computing net income for the taxable period in which falls the date of his death, amounts accrued up to the date of his death if not otherwise properly includible in respect of such period or a prior period." 26 U.S.C.A. 42. "Sec. [] 43. Period for which deductions and credits taken "* * * In the case of the death of a taxpayer there shall be allowed as deductions and credits for the taxable period in which falls the date of his death, amounts accrued up to the date of his death if not otherwise properly allowable in respect of such period or a prior period." 26 U.S.C.A. 43. 5. H. Report, 704, 73rd Cong., 2nd Session, Ways and Means Committee, pg. 24: "Sections 42 and 43. Income accrued and accrued deductions of decedents: The courts have held that income accrued by a decedent on the cash basis prior to his death is not income to the estate, and under the present law, unless such income is taxable to the decedent, it escapes income tax altogether. By the same reasoning, expenses accrued prior to death cannot be deducted by the estate. Section 42 has been drawn to require the inclusion in the income of a decedent of all amounts accrued up to the date of his death regardless of the fact that he may have kept his books on a cash basis. Section 43 has also been changed so that expenses accrued prior to the death of the decedent may be deducted." S. Report No. 558, 73rd Cong. 2nd Session, Committee on Finance, pg. 28: "Sections 42 and 43. Period for which deductions and credits taken. The courts have held that income accrued prior to the death of a decedent on the cash basis is not income to his estate, and under the present law, unless such income is taxable to the decedent, it escapes income tax altogether. By the same reasoning, expenses accrued prior to death cannot be deducted by the estate. Sections 42 and 43 of the House bill were so drawn as to require the inclusion in the income-tax return for the decedent of all items of income and deductions accrued up to the date of death regardless of the fact that the decedent may have kept his books on a cash basis. The change made in section 43 is necessary to effectuate the policy adopted in the House bill in section 42 ................" 6. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co. v. Com'r, 10 Cir., 79 F.2d 391; Avery v. Com'r, supra; Higginbotham-Bailey Logan Co. v. Com'r, 8 B.T.A. 566. 7. Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co., 300 U.S. 481, 490, 57 S.Ct. 569, 81 L.Ed. 755; Elmhurst Cemetery Co. v. Com'r, 300 U.S. 37, 40, 57 S.Ct. 324, 81 L.Ed. 491; General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200, 206, 56 S.Ct. 185, 80 L.Ed. 154; Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U.S. 123, 131, 55 S.Ct. 732, 79 L.Ed. 1343. 8. "After his death, I have kept the books and records in connection with the liquidation and handling of his estate. I was familiar with notes and accounts due to him and handled them for the estate. "I have here my book of accounts, listing notes due to George Herder * * * "My record book of account of notes receivable showed unsecured notes due from Matthews Brothers, * * * "My book here shows that a value of $2,000 was placed upon these notes, and I am reasonably sure the difference was charged off in 1934 after the death of Mr. Herder. The book does not show any of these notes were charged off. It is just a list, but I know that they were charged off. "I have W. R. Terrill down in my book for several notes. * * *" * * * "Q. Have you an account receivable against Emil Herder? "A. I think that was in the shape of an account receivable, and I believe that it is on Mr. Herder's book. I did not transfer that to the new book (at this point the witness looks and gets another book from among his records.) Yes, Mr. Herder's individual ledger, in that book, and not in this book (indicating first book) he shows an account receivable against Emil Herder page 115 of the individual ledger of Mr. George Herder, Senior in the total amount of $2,298.53 composed of three items the addition of three items * * * "I only kept Mr. Herder's books after his death and did not know their details previously. During his life Mr. Herder kept his own records. * * *" "For the income tax returns for the estate or widow I only furnished the books and data. I was generally familiar with their problems." Referring to the Herder Rice Milling Co., witness said: "I had charge of the books and records." 9. Jones v. Com'r, 7 Cir., 38 F.2d 550; Perry v. Com'r, 22 B.T.A. 13; Brown v. United States, 3 Cir., 95 F.2d 487; People's-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 10 F.Supp. 139; Redfield v. Com'r, 34 B.T.A. 967; Stephenson v. Com'r, 8 Cir., 43 F.2d 348; Shiman v. Com'r, 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 65. 10. "Sec. [] 111. (a) Computation of gain or loss. The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the
1/9/2014
amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 113 (b) for determining gain, and the loss shall be the excess of the adjusted basis provided in such section for determining loss over the amount realized." 26 U.S.C.A. 111(a). 11. "Sec. [] 112. (f) Involuntary conversions. If property (as a result of its destruction in whole or in part, theft or seizure, or an exercise of the power of requisition or condemnation, or the threat or imminence thereof) is compulsorily or involuntarily converted into property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted, or into money which is forthwith in good faith, under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary, expended in the acquisition of other property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted, or in the acquisition of control of a corporation owning such other property, or in the establishment of a replacement fund, no gain or loss shall be recognized. If any part of the money is not so expended, the gain, if any, shall be recognized, but in an amount not in excess of the money which is not so expended." 26 U.S. C.A. 112(f). 12. Revenue Act, 1934, c. 277, 48 Stat. 680, Sec. 117, 26 U.S.C. 101, 26 U.S.C. A. 101. 13. Sec. 117. (f) "Retirement of bonds, Etc. For the purposes of this title, amounts received by the holder upon the retirement of bonds, debentures, notes, or certificates or other evidences of indebtedness issued by any corporation (including those issued by a government or political subdivision thereof), with interest coupons or in registered form, shall be considered as amounts received in exchange therefor." 14. Jackson v. McIntosh, 5 Cir., 12 F.2d 676, certiorari denied 273 U.S. 697, 47 S.Ct. 93, 71 L.Ed. 846; Iowa v. McFarland, 110 U.S. 471, 4 S.Ct. 210, 28 L. Ed. 198; Butler v. Thomson, 92 U.S. 412, 23 L.Ed. 684; Commissioner v. Freihofer, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 787; Hale v. Helvering, 66 App.D.C. 242, 85 F.2d 819; Herring Motor Co. v. tna Trust & Sav. Co., 87 Ind.App. 83, 154 N.E. 29; Hartwig v. Rushing, 93 Or. 6, 182 P. 177; Grace v. McDowell, 60 Or. 577, 120 P. 413. 15. Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690; Atlantic Steel Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 39 Ga.App. 680, 148 S.E. 286; Mack v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 329 Ill. 158, 160 N.E. 222, 57 A.L.R. 1039; Meyer v. Building & Realty Service Co., 209 Ind. 125, 196 N.E. 250. 16. H. Report, 704, note 5, supra: "Subsection (f) provides that amounts received upon the retirement of corporate bonds and similar evidences of indebtedness shall be considered as amounts received in exchange therefor." (Italics supplied) 17. Continental Oil Co. v. Helvering, 69 App.D.C. 236, 100 F.2d 101; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115, 54 S.Ct. 8, 78 L.Ed. 212; Lucas v. Structural Steel Co., 281 U.S. 264, 271, 50 S.Ct. 263, 74 L.Ed. 848; Wickwire v. Reinecke, 275 U.S. 101, 105, 48 S.Ct. 43, 72 L.Ed. 184. 18. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. v. McLaughlin, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 934; Rieck v. Heiner, 3 Cir., 25 F.2d 453. Cf. Smith v. Dean, D.C., 52 F.2d 291; Joseph S. Wells Ass'n v. Helvering, 63 App.D.C. 254, 71 F.2d 977; Peerless Investment Co. v. Com'r, 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 427. 19. See, Autosales Corp. v. Com'r, 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 931, 937. 20. United States v. Ludey, 274 U.S. 295, 304, 47 S.Ct. 608, 71 L.Ed. 1054; Kittredge v. Com'r, 2 Cir., 88 F.2d 632.
Comment
Name Email Comment 1000 Characters Remainaing
Submit
Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.
User Comments
Reply | Flag as Offensive
Listed below are the cases that are cited in the Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Cited Cases From F.2d, Reporter Series
22 F.2d 6 95 F.2d 821 88 F.2d 952 67 F.2d 475 66 F.2d 425 59 F.2d 694 54 F.2d 781 79 F.2d 391 38 F.2d 550 95 F.2d 487 43 F.2d 348 60 F.2d 65 12 F.2d 676 102 F.2d 787 85 F.2d 819 100 F.2d 101
1/9/2014
78 F.2d 934 25 F.2d 453 52 F.2d 291 71 F.2d 977 80 F.2d 427 43 F.2d 931 88 F.2d 632
From U.S., Reporter Series

282 U.S. 122 300 U.S. 481 300 U.S. 37 296 U.S. 200 295 U.S. 123 110 U.S. 471 92 U.S. 412 290 U.S. 111 281 U.S. 264 275 U.S. 101 274 U.S. 295
From F.Supp., Reporter Series

10 F.Supp. 139
Listed below are those cases in which the Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Citing Cases Featured Lawyer This place is reserved for the Featured Lawyer of this case
Top Local Lawyers

Dan Pagliarini Honolulu, HI
Accident & Injury, Car Accident, Personal Injury, Wrongful Death, Medical Malpractice see profile
Lars Isaacson Honolulu, HI

Criminal, Felony, Misdemeanor, White Collar Crime, DUI-DWI
Copyright 2013 Leagle, Inc.
Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | About Us | Contact Us
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1939259106F2d153_1229
41 / 41

Tax Cases

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tax Cases

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

G.R. No.

Today is Thursday, January 09, 2014

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-17518

October 30, 1922

G.R. No. L-17518

G.R. No. L-17518

G.R. No. L-17518

G.R. No. L-17518

G.R. No. L-17518

OSTRAND, J., dissenting:

G.R. No. L-17518

G.R. No. L-17518

Malcolm, J., concurs.

JOHNS, J., dissenting:

G.R. No. L-17518

Lawphil Main Menu

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. - 247 U.S. 179 (1918)

U.S. Supreme Court

Eisner v. Macomber - 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

U.S. Supreme Court

Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 25 U. S. 269.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

U.S. Supreme Court

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

FindLaw Career Center

G.R. No. 78953

Today is Thursday, January 09, 2014

Republic of the Philippines

Elison G. Natividad for accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 78953

G.R. No. 78953

Lawphil Main Menu

G.R. No. 78953

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

HERDER v. HELVERINGNos. 7179, 7180.

HERDER et al. v. HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue. HERDER v. SAME.

The Bad Debts

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

The George Herder Return

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

The Mary Herder Return

The Proceeds of the Insurance Policy

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

Adjusted Cost Basis

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

HERDER v. HELVERING | Leagle.com

From U.S., Reporter Series

From F.Supp., Reporter Series

Top Local Lawyers

Lars Isaacson Honolulu, HI

Copyright 2013 Leagle, Inc.

Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | About Us | Contact Us

Вам также может понравиться