Helvering v. Horst case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
311 U.S. 112, 61 S. Ct. 144, 85 L. Ed.
75, 1940 U.S.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner Commissioner
of Internal Revenue sought certiorari review of a judgment from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed
an order from the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining petitioner's
determination of a deficiency in income tax against respondent
taxpayer.
FACTS: Respondent, the owner of negotiable bonds, detached from the bonds negotiable interest coupons shortly before their due date and delivered them as a gift to his son who in the same year collected them at maturity. Petitioner ruled that under § 22 of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 686, the interest payments were taxable, in the years when paid, to respondent donor who reported this income on the cash receipts basis. The court of appeals reversed an order sustaining the tax. The sole issue on appeal was whether the gift of the coupons during respondent donor's taxable year, delivered to the donee and later in the year paid at maturity, was the realization of income taxable to respondent.
FACTS: Respondent, the owner of negotiable bonds, detached from the bonds negotiable interest coupons shortly before their due date and delivered them as a gift to his son who in the same year collected them at maturity. Petitioner ruled that under § 22 of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 686, the interest payments were taxable, in the years when paid, to respondent donor who reported this income on the cash receipts basis. The court of appeals reversed an order sustaining the tax. The sole issue on appeal was whether the gift of the coupons during respondent donor's taxable year, delivered to the donee and later in the year paid at maturity, was the realization of income taxable to respondent.
ANALYSIS:The United States Supreme
Court reversed and held that the deficiency was properly assessed
against respondent because when respondent gave the gift of the
coupons, he separated his right to interest payments from his
investment and procured the payment of the interest to his donee and
enjoyed the economic benefits of the income in the same manner and to
the same extent as though the transfer were of earnings.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed and held that the deficiency was properly assessed against respondent.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed and held that the deficiency was properly assessed against respondent.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment