Poe v. Seaborn

Last updated
Poe v. Seaborn
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 21, 1930
Decided November 24, 1930
Full case namePoe, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Seaborn
Citations282 U.S. 101 ( more )
51 S.Ct. 58; 75 L. Ed. 239; 1930 U.S. LEXIS 7
Case history
PriorSeaborn v. Poe, 32 F.2d 916 (W.D. Wash. 1929)
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland  · Pierce Butler
Harlan F. Stone  · Owen Roberts
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts
Hughes and Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a married person's income may be divided with his spouse in a community property state for purposes of U.S. federal income taxation. [1] The Seaborns were residents of the State of Washington, a community property state, and each reported one-half of Mr. Seaborn's salary and other sources of income on their separate income tax returns. [2] The Collector of Internal Revenue determined that the entire income should have been reported in Mr. Seaborn's return. [3] The district court ruled in favor of Mr. Seaborn, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In doing so, the Court distinguished Lucas v. Earl , in which the Court disallowed income splitting by entering into a contract with one's wife, by noting that the earnings in Mr. Seaborn's case are property of the community by state law. [4] In 1948, the United States Congress responded to the different treatment of married taxpayers in community property states and non-community property states by allowing all married couples to take advantage of the "income splitting" joint return. [5] [6]

Contents

Facts and Procedural History

H. G. Seaborn and his wife were residents of the State of Washington, a community property state. In their separate 1927 income tax returns, the Seaborns each reported one-half of Mr. Seaborn's salary, as well as income from interest on bank deposits, bonds, dividends, and profits on real and personal property in his name. [3] It was undisputed that the entirety of the Seaborns' income, which amounted to more than $38,000, constituted community property. [7] Each spouse's reporting one-half of the community income allowed the Seaborns to reduce their income tax under the progressive rate structure of federal income taxation. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a surtax, determining that the entire income should have been reported in Mr. Seaborn's return. Mr. Seaborn paid under protest and brought this suit in federal district court to recover the amount. [3]

The district court rendered judgment for Mr. Seaborn. [8] The Collector of Internal Revenue appealed, and the Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the Supreme Court. [3]

Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. [1] Justice Owen Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, while Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Stone did not partake in the consideration or decision of the case. The Court held that in a community property state such as Washington, the Seaborns were entitled to file separate income tax returns, with each spouse reporting one-half of the community income as his or her income. [1] The Court explained that by operation of Washington state law, Mrs. Seaborn has a vested property right in the community property that is equal with Mr. Seaborn's, and therefore, in the community income. [9] In doing so, the Court rejected the Collector's argument that the husband is "essentially" the owner of the community property since he has "broad powers of control and alienation" over the community income, and thus should be taxed accordingly. [9]

The Supreme Court distinguished Lucas v. Earl , decided by the Court approximately eight months before Seaborn. In Earl , the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled against the taxpayer, who had entered into a contract with his wife providing that all subsequent earnings would be held by them as joint tenants. [10] Justice Roberts explained that Earl presented "quite a different question from this, because here, by law, the earnings are never the property of the husband, but that of the community." [11]

Subsequent Developments

The Supreme Court's decision in Poe v. Seaborn conferred significant tax advantages upon married couples residing in community property states. [5] It also meant, however, that spouses in non-community property states were disadvantaged by their inability to shift income. The effects of this disparity became even more significant as marginal tax rates rose around World War II. [5] [12] Consequently, between 1939 and 1947, several states adopted community property regimes, including Michigan, [13] Nebraska, [14] Oklahoma, [15] Oregon, [16] and Pennsylvania. [17] [12]

In response to the states' adoption of community property laws, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1948, which stated that "[e]qualization is provided for the tax burdens of married couples in common-law and community-property States." [18] The Act allowed all married couples to file an "income splitting" joint return. Shortly after Congress passed the Act, many states repealed their community property laws. [12]

Further reading

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1913 amendment regulating the collection of federal income tax

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax. The decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows Congress to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166, enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, allowing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government was prohibited from recognizing same-sex couples who were lawfully married under the laws of their state. The conflict between this definition and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional on June 26, 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor. DOMA was finally repealed and replaced by the Respect for Marriage Act on December 13, 2022, which retains the same statutory provisions as DOMA and extends them to interracial and same-sex married couples.

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. The Code's implementing federal agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act is a United States law authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden, and signed into law as title XI of Pub. L. 105–277 (text)(PDF) on October 21, 1998 by President Bill Clinton in an effort to promote and preserve the commercial, educational, and informational potential of the Internet. The law bars federal, state and local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory Internet-only taxes such as bit taxes, bandwidth taxes, and email taxes. It also bars multiple taxes on electronic commerce.

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax that was contemplated by the Constitution.

The U.S. generation-skipping transfer tax imposes a tax on both outright gifts and transfers in trust to or for the benefit of unrelated persons who are more than 37.5 years younger than the donor or to related persons more than one generation younger than the donor, such as grandchildren. These people are known as "skip persons." In most cases where a trust is involved, the GST tax will be imposed only if the transfer avoids incurring a gift or estate tax at each generation level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

The history of taxation in the United States begins with the colonial protest against British taxation policy in the 1760s, leading to the American Revolution. The independent nation collected taxes on imports ("tariffs"), whiskey, and on glass windows. States and localities collected poll taxes on voters and property taxes on land and commercial buildings. In addition, there were the state and federal excise taxes. State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, however, the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9 defines a direct tax. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not create a new tax.

Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.

United States v. Davis, 370 U.S. 65 (1962), is a federal income tax case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1962, holding that a taxpayer recognizes a gain on the transfer of appreciated property in satisfaction of a legal obligation.

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning U.S. Federal income taxation, about a man who reported only half of his earnings for years 1920 and 1921. Guy C. Earl and his wife had entered into a contract that would potentially save a lot of tax. The contract specified that earnings were owned by the couple as joint tenants. It is unlikely that it was tax-motivated, since there was no income tax in 1901 when they executed the contract. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered the Court’s opinion which generally stands for the proposition that income from services is taxed to the party who performed the services. The case is used to support the proposition that the substance of the transaction, rather than the form, is controlling for tax purposes.

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "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", was never properly ratified, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification, despite its admission to the Union on March 1, 1803, more than a century prior. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

The estate tax in the United States is a federal tax on the transfer of the estate of a person who dies. The tax applies to property that is transferred by will or, if the person has no will, according to state laws of intestacy. Other transfers that are subject to the tax can include those made through a trust and the payment of certain life insurance benefits or financial accounts. The estate tax is part of the federal unified gift and estate tax in the United States. The other part of the system, the gift tax, applies to transfers of property during a person's life.

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.

Taxation of income in the United States has been practised since colonial times. Some southern states imposed their own taxes on income from property, both before and after Independence. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that "direct taxes" be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was first introduced under the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. It was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.

Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank ACB, 531 U.S. 316 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether CoBank is exempt from state income tax requirements. A unanimous Court held that they are not exempt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act</span>

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act is a U.S. federal law enacted on September 8, 1982 to address issues that arise when a member of the military divorces, and primarily concerns jointly-earned marital property consisting of benefits earned during marriage and while one of the spouses is a military service member. The divisibility of U.S. military retirement payments in divorce proceedings has had a turbulent legislative and legal history, and the USFSPA has not closely tracked its civilian cousin enacted in 1975, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), although they are similar in some respects with regard to public policy aims.

Davis v. Michigan, 489 U.S. 803 (1989), is a case in the Supreme Court of the United States holding that states may not tax federal pensions if they exempt their own state pensions from taxation. In the 1930s, the federal and state governments began to charge income tax on salaries paid to each other's employees. However, reciprocal treatment was required under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The Court's ruling extended the reciprocity to pensions, since they are a form of deferred compensation for services previously rendered by an employee.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 118 (1930).
  2. ↑ Seaborn, 282 U.S. at 108-09.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Seaborn, 282 U.S. at 109.
  4. ↑ Seaborn, 282 U.S. at 117.
  5. 1 2 3 Bankman, Joseph (2012). Federal Income Taxation. Shaviro, Daniel N., Stark, Kirk J. (16th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. p. 395. ISBN   9781454809968. OCLC   781848598.
  6. ↑ Boris I. Bittker, Martin J. McMahon, Jr., and Lawrence A. Zelenak, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals § 44.02 (3d. ed. 2018).
  7. ↑ Seaborn v. Poe, 32F.2d916 , 917( W.D. Wash. 1929).
  8. ↑ Seaborn, 32 F.2d at 920.
  9. 1 2 Seaborn, 282 U.S. at 111.
  10. ↑ Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930).
  11. ↑ Seaborn, 282 U.S. at 117 (emphasis added).
  12. 1 2 3 Jennifer E. Sturiale, The Passage of Community Property Laws, 1939-1947: Was "More Than Money" Involved?, 11 Mich. J. Gender & L. 213 (2005).
  13. ↑ Act of July 1, 1947, No. 317, 1947 Mich. Pub. Acts 517 (codified as amended at Mich. Comp. Laws § 557.201-220 (1947)) (repealed 1948).
  14. ↑ Act of June 12, 1947, ch. 156, 1947 Neb. Laws 426 (codified as amended at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-601 to 616 (1947)) (repealed 1949).
  15. ↑ Act of May 10, 1939, ch. 62, 1939 Okla. Sess. Laws 190 (codified as amended at Okla. Stat. § 51-65 (1941)) (repealed 1945).
  16. ↑ Act of Mar. 29, 1943, ch. 440, 1943 Or. Laws 656 (codified as amended at Or. Rev. Stat. § 63-2A01 to 2A16 (1945)) (repealed 1945); Act of Apr. 19, 1947, ch. 525, 1947 Or. Laws 910 (codified as amended at Or. Rev. Stat. § 63-2B01 to 2B16 (1947)) (repealed 1949).
  17. ↑ Act of July 7, 1947, ch. 550, 1947 Pa. Laws 1423 (to be codified at Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-15 (1947)) (declared unconstitutional in Wilcox v. Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 55 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1947)).
  18. ↑ H.R. Rep. No. 80-1274 (1948), reprinted in 1948 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1258.
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.