Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 10–11, 1929; Reargued April 15, 1929; Decided June 3, 1929
Full case name	Old Colony Trust Company, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Citations	279 U.S. 716 ( more ) 49 S. Ct. 499; 73 L. Ed. 918; 1929 U.S. LEXIS 66; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 408; 7 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 8875; 1929-2 C.B. 222; 1929 P.H. P1023
Case history
Prior	On certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Holding
	When a third party pays a person's income tax on his behalf, the payment is income that is taxable to the employee.;
Court membership
	Chief Justice William H. Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter ; James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis ; George Sutherland · Pierce Butler ; Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
Majority	Taft, joined by Holmes, Stone, Sanford, Brandeis, Sutherland, Van Devanter, Butler
Dissent	McReynolds
Laws applied
	Revenue Act of 1926

Last updated December 26, 2020

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States.^[1]

Facts and procedural history

In 1916, the American Woolen Company adopted a resolution which provided that the company would pay all taxes due on the salaries of the company's officers. It calculated the employees' tax liabilities based on a gross income that omitted, or excluded, the amount of the income taxes themselves.

In 1925, the Bureau of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency for the amount of taxes paid on behalf of the company's president, William Madison Wood, arguing that his $681,169.88 tax payment had wrongly been excluded from his gross income in 1919, and that his $351,179.27 tax payment had wrongly been excluded from his gross income in 1920. Old Colony Trust Co., as the executors of Wood's estate, filed suit in the District Court for a refund, then appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (the predecessor to the United States Tax Court). The petitioners then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which certified the following question to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court: "Did the payment by the employer of the income taxes assessable against the employee constitute additional taxable income to such employee?"

Majority opinion

Justiciability. Chief Justice Taft, writing for the majority, first held that the appeal of Wood's executors was a justiciable case or controversy for the court to decide. Furthermore, the fact that the Revenue Act of 1926 (which altered the appeals process for tax deficiencies) was passed while the case was under review by the Board of Tax Appeals did not cut off the judicial process sought by the petitioners. Taft held that the principle of res judicata resolved the jurisdictional issue, because regardless of whether the District Court action or the Board's action were decided first, the judgment which was first in time would then be properly appealable.

Merits. Taft held that payment of Mr. Wood's taxes by his employer constituted additional taxable income to him for the years in question. The fact that a person induced or permitted a third party to pay income taxes on his behalf does not excuse him from filing a tax return. Furthermore, Taft added, "The discharge by a third person of an obligation to him is equivalent to receipt by the person taxed." 279 U.S. 716 at 729.

Thus, the company's payment of Wood's tax bill was the same as giving him extra income, regardless of the mode of payment. Further, the payment of taxes of Wood's behalf did not constitute a gift in the legal sense, because it was made in consideration of his services to the company, thus making the payment part of his compensation package. (This case did not change the general rule that gifts are not includable in gross income for the purposes of U.S. Federal income taxation, while some gifts but not all gifts from an employer to an employee are taxable to the employee.^[2]).

Dissent

Justice McReynolds wrote a brief dissent. He felt that the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction because the Revenue Act of 1926 interfered with the executive power of the Board of Tax Appeals.

Academic commentary

Petitioner was essentially arguing that Federal income taxes should be tax deductible. The holding of this case is today embodied in Internal Revenue Code §275, which was added to the Code in 1964 and which specifically disallows a deduction for federal income taxes.^[3]

Related Research Articles

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 2010, taxes collected by federal, state, and municipal governments amounted to 24.8% of GDP. In the OECD, only Chile and Mexico are taxed less as a share of their GDP.

The United States Tax Court is a federal trial court of record established by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, section 8 of which provides that the Congress has the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". The Tax Court specializes in adjudicating disputes over federal income tax, generally prior to the time at which formal tax assessments are made by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), formally the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of the United States Code (USC). It is organized topically, into subtitles and sections, covering income tax in the United States, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes; as well as procedure and administration. Its implementing agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

A gift tax is a tax imposed on the transfer of ownership of property during the giver's life. The United States Internal Revenue Service says that a gift is "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full compensation is not received in return."

Taxation in the Republic of Ireland in 2017 came from Personal Income taxes, and Consumption taxes, being VAT and Excise and Customs duties. Corporation taxes represents most of the balance, but Ireland's Corporate Tax System (CT) is a central part of Ireland's economic model. Ireland summarises its taxation policy using the OECD's Hierarchy of Taxes pyramid, which emphasises high corporate tax rates as the most harmful types of taxes where economic growth is the objective. The balance of Ireland's taxes are Property taxes and Capital taxes.

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, most states, and many local governments. 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.

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.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the taxability, under United States tax law, of a divided interest in a bequest. It is notable for the following holding:

Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court case from 1960 dealing with the exclusion of "the value of property acquired by gift" from the gross income of an income taxpayer.

United States v. Gotcher, 401 F.2d 118, is a tax case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Artnell Company v. Commissioner, 400 F.2d 981 is a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the court, distinguishing from the holding in Schlude v. Commissioner, held that accrual method taxpayers are not required to include prepayments in gross income when there is certainty as to when performance would occur.

The 861 argument is a statutory argument used by tax protesters in the United States, which interprets a portion of the Internal Revenue Code as invalidating certain applications of income tax. The argument has uniformly been held by courts to be incorrect, and persons who have cited the argument as a basis for refusing to pay income taxes have been penalized, and in some cases jailed.

Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under § 102(a). It is notable for the following holdings:

Benaglia v. Commissioner 36 B.T.A. 838 (1937) is a United States income tax case heard in the U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, discussing when an employee can exclude employer-provided benefits from his income. The Board held that a taxpayer employee may exclude the value of food and lodging received from his employer, if he receives it solely for the convenience of his employer and as a necessary incident of the proper performance of his duty. The meals-and-lodging exclusion has been formalized as §119 in the tax code.

Sibla v. Commissioner, 611 F.2d 1260, was an important income tax case regarding 26 U.S.C.S. § 162(a).

Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case related to income tax.

Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956), was an income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.

Taxation in Estonia consists of state and local taxes. A relatively high proportion of government revenue comes from consumption taxes whilst revenue from capital taxes is one of the lowest in the European Union.

References

↑ Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929).
↑ See 26 U.S.C. § 102, 26 U.S.C. § 74(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 132(e).
↑ Chirelstein, Marvin (2005). Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts (Tenth ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press. p. 50. ISBN 1-58778-894-2.

External links

Works related to Old Colony Trust Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue at Wikisource
Text of Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716(1929) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929).

[2] See 26 U.S.C. § 102, 26 U.S.C. § 74(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 132(e).

[3] Chirelstein, Marvin (2005). Federal Income Taxation: A Law Student's Guide to the Leading Cases and Concepts (Tenth ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press. p. 50. ISBN 1-58778-894-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]