Haverly v. United States

Last updated
Haverly v. United States
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case nameCharles N. Haverly and Ruth L. Haverly v. United States of America
ArguedJanuary 10, 1975
DecidedMarch 20, 1975
Citation(s)513 F.2d 224; 75-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 9326
Case history
Subsequent historyRehearing en banc denied, May 5, 1975
Holding
The taxpayer (a public elementary school principal) had to include in gross income the value of unsolicited sample textbooks, sent to him by publishers, when he subsequently donated them to the school's library and claimed a charitable deduction.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John Simpson Hastings, Luther Merritt Swygert, Walter J. Cummings Jr.
Case opinions
MajorityHastings, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code

Haverly v. United States, 513 F.2d 224 (7th Cir. 1975) [1] is a United States income tax case.

Contents

Held:

Case Brief

Facts

During the years 1967 and 1968 Charles N. Haverly was the principal of the Alice L. Barnard Elementary School in Chicago, Illinois. In each of these years publishers sent to the taxpayer unsolicited sample copies of textbooks which had a total fair market value at the time of receipt of $400. In 1968 Haverly donated the books to the Alice L. Barnard Elementary School Library. The parties agreed that the donation entitled the taxpayer to a charitable deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 170, in the amount of $400, the value of the books at the time of the contribution. [4]

Issue

The issue in this case was "whether the value of unsolicited sample textbooks sent by publishers to a principal of a public elementary school, which he subsequently donated to the school's library and for which he claimed a charitable deduction, constitutes gross income to the principal within the meaning of Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 61." [4]

Holding

Haverly cannot take a charitable contribution deduction for donating books that he himself never purchased. The court cited Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. for the proposition that "Section 61(a) encompasses all 'accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.'" [5]

Subsequent developments

Following this decision, Congress enacted Rev. Rule. 70-498, which prevents double dipping of both deducted and charitable donations.

Academic Commentary

It seems strange to permit a party to exclude a receipt and also deduct its value. Nevertheless, the court barred neither—but it accompanied the charitable deduction with income realization at an equal amount. Here are the reasons it chose this approach: [6]

Related Research Articles

Taxation in the United States

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP. The United States had the seventh-lowest tax revenue-to-GDP ratio among OECD countries in 2020, with a higher ratio than Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Ireland, Costa Rica, and Turkey.

Tax deduction is a reduction of income that is able to be taxed and is commonly a result of expenses, particularly those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.

Under United States tax law, itemized deductions are eligible expenses that individual taxpayers can claim on federal income tax returns and which decrease their taxable income, and is claimable in place of a standard deduction, if available.

Charitable contribution deductions for United States Federal Income Tax purposes are defined in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code as contributions to or for the use of certain nonprofit enterprises.

For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.

Income taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal government, and most states. The income taxes are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. An alternative tax applies at the federal and some state levels.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), was an important income tax case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held as follows:

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," the starting point for determining which items of income are taxable for federal income tax purposes in the United States. Section 61 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived [. .. ]". The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that Congress intended to express its full power to tax incomes to the extent that such taxation is permitted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States and under the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment.

<i>Murphy v. IRS</i>

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, is a controversial tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void, by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.

A charitable remainder unitrust is an irrevocable trust created under the authority of Internal Revenue Code § 664 ("Code"). This special, irrevocable trust has two primary characteristics: (1) Once established, the CRUT distributes a fixed percentage of the value of its assets to a non-charitable beneficiary ; and (2) At the expiration of a specified time, the remaining balance of the CRUTs assets are distributed to charity. The trustee determines the fair market value of the CRUT's assets at the time of contribution, and thereafter on the applicable valuation date. The fixed annuity percentage must be at least 5% and no more than 50% of the fair market value of the assets in the corpus. The remainder must be at least 10% of the fair market value of the assets contributed to the CRUT. Code Section 664(d)(1) sets the federal income tax requirements for a charitable remainder unitrust.

<i>Hornung v. Commissioner</i>

Hornung v. Commissioner is a case heard by the United States Tax Court in 1967.

Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney's fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.

Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to the Internal Revenue Code § 170 charitable contribution deduction.

<i>United States v. Harris</i> (tax case)

United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125 was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealing with the exclusion of the value of property acquired by "gift" from the gross income of two income taxpayers.

Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.

<i>Warren Jones Co. v. Commissioner</i>

Warren Jones Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 524 F.2d 788 was a taxation decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (1990), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. It concerned claims made by parents of two missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that their monetary contributions toward their sons' mission expenses constituted a "charitable contribution" under provisions of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-1(g) (1989), a position that lower courts had rejected. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that these contributions could not be seen as "charitable contributions" under provisions of that statute.

<i>Early v. Commissioner</i>

Early v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 166 was a United States income tax case, holding that an agreement between taxpayers and heirs of decedent—pursuant to which taxpayers received a joint life interest in income from the trust estate in return for the surrender of stock allegedly given to them by the decedent—was actually a compromise of the taxpayers' disputed right to the stock, and since they claimed the stock as donees, they were to be treated as having acquired their life estate in that capacity for federal income tax purposes.

<i>Wills v. Commissioner</i>

Wills v. Commissioner, 411 F. 2d 537 was a United States taxation case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1969.

References

  1. Haverly v. United States, 513F.2d224 (7th Cir.1975).
  2. 26 U.S.C.   § 61
  3. 26 U.S.C.   § 170
  4. 1 2 Seventh Circuit (10 January 1975). "513 F2d 224 Haverly v. United States". p. 224.
  5. Haverly, 513 F.2d at 226 (quoting Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. , 348 U.S. 426 (1955)).
  6. Chirelstein, Marvin (2005). Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts (Tenth ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press. pp. 23–26. ISBN   1-58778-894-2.

Text of Haverly v. United States, 513 F.2d 224 (7th Cir. 1975) is available from:  CourtListener    Justia    OpenJurist    Google Scholar