{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Spring2010_Benchmark_Cases - CITATION ISSUES Eisner v...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CITATION Eisner v Macomber , 252 U.S. 189, 1 USTC ¶32 (1920); 3 A.F.T.R. 3020 ISSUES Does Congress have the power under the Sixteenth Amendment to tax stock dividends as income? FACTS Mrs. Macomber owned 2,200 shares of Standard Oil Company. In 1916, she received 1,100 additional shares of stock as a stock dividend from the company. Of the stock dividend, 198.77 shares, with a par value of $19,877, were treated as representing surplus earned between March 1, 1913, and January 1, 1916. She was called upon to pay tax on the stock dividend under the Revenue Act of 1916 which provided that stock dividends were income. Mrs. Macomber paid the tax under protest and then brought action against the Collector to recover the tax contending that in imposing such a tax, the Revenue Act of 1916 violated U.S. Constitution article 1,§ 2. Cl.3 and article 1, § 9, cl. 4 which required direct taxes be apportioned according to population and that the stock dividend was not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. The district court held in favor of Mrs. Macomber. HOLDING The US Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that a stock dividend is not income. The Revenue Act of 1916 subjecting stock dividends to tax was held unconstitutional. ANALYSIS The Court relied upon the reasoning in Towne v. Eisner which held that stock dividends were not taxable as income. In Towne v. Eisner the court stated that “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 interests are not increased .” The court held that by treating the stock dividend as income, the United States failed to appraise correctly the force of the term “income” as used in the Sixteenth Amendment.
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Citation: Evelyn F. Gregory v. Helvering, 35-1 USTC ¶ 9043, 14 AFTR 1191 Issue(s): (1) Does the Revenue Act of 1928 place more emphasis on substance or form of a transaction? (2) Is a business purpose required for conducting business reorganizations and receiving a tax exemption? Facts: O n September 18, 1928, Evelyn Gregory, the “petitioner”, attempted to reorganize the United Mortgage Corporation by transferring assets of 1,000 shares of the Monitor Securities Corporation to a new company named Averill Corporation. The petitioner owned all of the shares of the Averill Corporation and the United Mortgage Corporation. Seven days after the formation of the Averill Corporation, the petitioner dissolved the Averill Corporation and collected 1,000 shares of the Monitor Securities Corporation. The motive behind this action was to avoid paying taxes on a dividend distribution from United Mortgage Corporation and instead chose a long-term capital gain on the sale of Monitor Securities Corporation stock. Both the reorganization of United Mortgage Corporation by transferring the assets and the liquidating distribution of Averill were nontaxable. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue believed that the reorganization was attempted without substance and must be disregarded. The Commissioner held that the taxpayer should be
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern