Stanton v. United States

Last updated
Stanton v. United States
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameAlden D. Stanton and Louise M. Stanton v. United States of America
ArguedMay 14, 1959
DecidedJuly 6, 1959
Citation(s)268 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1959)
Case history
Subsequent historyOn remand, 186 F. Supp. 393 (E.D.N.Y. 1960)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Learned Hand, Thomas Walter Swan, Carroll C. Hincks
Case opinions
MajorityHand, joined by Swan
DissentHincks
Laws applied
Internal Revenue Code

Stanton v. United States, 268 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1959), [1] was a United States income tax case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Contents

Background

Facts

Plaintiff husband managed the property of the Trinity Church (Manhattan) until a corporation was formed which took over that work. Plaintiff husband then became that corporation's president, and all of his time was spent caring for the corporation's real estate. When plaintiff husband resigned, the corporation gave him a gratuity in appreciation of his services. He was provided $20,000. He had to waive all his retirement and pension benefits.

Tax returns

Plaintiffs admitted that gratuity on their income tax returns, but did not include it as income because it was a gift.

The tax commissioner decided that it was income and assessed a tax deficiency, which plaintiffs paid, and thereafter filed a claim for a refund. Defendant denied that claim.

Tax court

The trial court held in plaintiffs' favor.

Opinion of the court

The court held that the test of compensation was whether what was added was by way of more compensation for a deserving employee or merely to satisfy the employer's desire to become a benefactor. Here, because plaintiff husband's duties were exclusively financial, and there was no evidence that personal affection entered into the payment, it could be assumed that the payment was the result of the corporation's satisfaction for services. Trial court's judgment reversed and remanded.

Judgment in plaintiffs' favor holding that the gratuity received by plaintiffs' was not taxable as income reversed and remanded where there was no evidence which indicated that the compensation paid to plaintiff husband by the corporation for which he worked was based on anything other than the corporation's satisfaction for the services rendered by plaintiff husband.

Related Research Articles

<i>Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology</i>

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology was a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primarily concerned with the enforceability of box-top licenses and end user license agreements (EULA) and their place in U.S. contract law. During the relevant period, Step-Saver Data Systems was a value-added reseller, combining hardware and software from different vendors to offer a fully functioning computer system to various end users. Step-Saver's products included software produced by Software Link, Inc (TSL), computer terminals produced by Wyse Technology, and main computers produced by IBM. The fundamental question raised in this case was whether the shrinkwrap licenses accompanying TSL's software were legally binding, given that different terms were negotiated over the phone with Step-Saver prior to receiving physical copies of the software. The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the court ruled that the shrinkwrap licenses were legally binding. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that the shrinkwrap licenses were not legally binding.

Garnishment is a legal process for collecting a monetary judgment on behalf of a plaintiff from a defendant. Garnishment allows the plaintiff to take the money or property of the debtor from the person or institution that holds that property. A similar legal mechanism called execution allows the seizure of money or property held directly by the debtor.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

Irwin Schiff American activist (1928–2015)

Irwin Allen Schiff was an American libertarian and tax resistance advocate known for writing and promoting literature in which he argued that the income tax in the United States is illegal and unconstitutional. Judges in several civil and criminal cases ruled in favor of the federal government and against Schiff. As a result of these judicial rulings Schiff was in a hospital prison serving a sentence of 162 months at the time of his death at the age of 87. The Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that Schiff died on October 16, 2015.

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.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013.

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.

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.

<i>Olk v. United States</i>

Olk v. United States, 536 F.2d 876, 76-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 9484, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920, 97 S. Ct. 317 (1976), was a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which dealt with the question of whether tips to casino dealers were taxable as income to the dealers under Internal Revenue Code section 61 or, alternatively, nontaxable gifts under Internal Revenue Code section 102(a).

<i>United States v. Gotcher</i>

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

Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, 344 U.S. 6 (1952), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding taxation. The case involves taxpayers who liquidated a corporation in 1937. The taxpayers (properly) reported the income from the liquidation as long-term capital gains, thus obtaining a preferential tax rate. Subsequent to the liquidation in 1944, the taxpayers were required to pay a judgment arising from the affairs of the liquidated corporation. The taxpayers classified this payment as an ordinary business loss, which would allow them to take a greater deduction for the loss than would be permitted for a capital loss.

<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.

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.

<i>United States v. Drescher</i> American legal case

United States v. Drescher, 179 F.2d 863 was a United States income tax case before the Second Circuit. The Court held as follows:

Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must prove that the false claim was made with the specific intent of inducing the government to pay or approve payment of a false or fraudulent claim, rather than merely defrauding a contractor. Congress overruled this decision with the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

<i>Estate of Carter v. Commissioner</i> United States Federal income tax legal case

Estate of Sydney J. Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 453 F.2d 61, was a United States Federal income tax case decided by Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court.

<i>Jordan Marsh Co. v. Commissioner</i> American legal case

Jordan Marsh Co. v. Commissioner, 269 F.2d 453 was a United States income tax case decided by the Second Circuit.

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

<i>Able v. United States</i> American legal case

Able v. United States, 88 F.3d 1280, 155 F.3d 628, is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that upheld the Don't ask, don't tell law against various constitutional challenges. Both Able I and Able II overruled district court decisions striking down "Don't ask, don't tell" as unconstitutional.

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review a denial of class certification after plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.

References

  1. Stanton v. United States, 268F.2d727 (2d Cir.1959).

Text of Stanton v. United States, 268 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1959) is available from:  CourtListener    Justia    OpenJurist    Google Scholar