Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert

Last updated
Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 21, 1913
Decided December 1, 1913
Full case nameStratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert, Collector of Internal Revenue
Citations231 U.S. 399 ( more )
34 S. Ct. 136; 58 L. Ed. 285; 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2577
Case history
Subsequent211 F. 1023 (8th Cir. 1914)
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · Horace H. Lurton
Charles E. Hughes  · Willis Van Devanter
Joseph R. Lamar  · Mahlon Pitney
Case opinions
MajorityPitney, joined by Day, Lurton, Hughes, Van Devanter, Lamar
Concur/dissentWhite, joined by McKenna, Holmes

Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the question of corporate taxation. [1]

Contents

Case

The case was argued on October 21, 1913, and decided on December 1, 1913.

Stratton's Independence, Limited, a British corporation that owned and operated mines in Colorado, sued in a district court to recover taxes it had paid under protest in accordance with the provisions of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909. During the year 1909, the firm had had gross sales of $284,682.85 and costs of $190,939.42, resulting in a profit of $93,743.43. In 1910, the figures had been similar. [1]

Plaintiff's argument

Stratton's contended that the mining and sale of ore was an essentially different sort of activity than manufacturing, because it involved the depletion and sale of capital, and should therefore not be taxed in the same way, because taxing the sale of ore amounted to taxing capital. [1]

Majority opinion

Justice Pitney, in the majority opinion, stated that the case raised three questions. The first was whether or not the Corporate Tax Act applied to mining corporations. The second question raised was whether or not proceeds from mining activities constituted "income" by the definition of the act. The final question related to whether or not ore sales were considered income and therefore if the mining corporation could deduct the value of the ore in place before it was mined as depreciation. The court answered the first two questions in the affirmative, but not the third. Mining, Justice Pitney argued, is generally comparable to manufacturing, and is certainly a business; hence, the gains from this activity should be considered income for the purposes of taxation. [1]

Chief Justice White, Justice McKenna, and Justice Holmes dissented on the third question. [1]

Significance

The case represented one of the Supreme Court's early attempts to define the term “income.” [2]

Justice Pitney's description of income as “the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined” has been widely quoted, as has his comment that “the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.” [3] [4]

The case has been cited (unsuccessfully) in such cases as Hill v. United States and Cameron v. Internal Revenue Service , in support of the argument that a tax on an individual's income is unconstitutional, even though the decision in Stratton did not rule either corporate or individual income tax unconstitutional. [5] [6]

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.

A dividend tax is a tax imposed by a jurisdiction on dividends paid by a corporation to its shareholders (stockholders). The primary tax liability is that of the shareholder, though a tax obligation may also be imposed on the corporation in the form of a withholding tax. In some cases the withholding tax may be the extent of the tax liability in relation to the dividend. A dividend tax is in addition to any tax imposed directly on the corporation on its profits. Some jurisdictions do not tax dividends.

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 5-4 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.

Taxation in Canada is a prerogative shared between the federal government and the various provincial and territorial legislatures.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings:

Although the actual definitions vary between jurisdictions, in general, a direct tax or income tax is a tax imposed upon a person or property as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction, which is described as an indirect tax. There is a distinction between direct and indirect tax depending on whether the tax payer is the actual taxpayer or if the amount of tax is supported by a third party, usually a client. The term may be used in economic and political analyses, but does not itself have any legal implications. However, in the United States, the term has special constitutional significance because of a provision in the U.S. Constitution that any direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In the European Union direct taxation remains the sole responsibility of member states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State income tax</span> Form of taxation in the United States

In addition to federal income tax collected by the United States, most individual U.S. states collect a state income tax. Some local governments also impose an income tax, often based on state income tax calculations. Forty-two states and many localities in the United States impose an income tax on individuals. Eight states impose no state income tax, and a ninth, New Hampshire, imposes an individual income tax on dividends and interest income but not other forms of income. Forty-seven states and many localities impose a tax on the income of corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Revenue Act of 1913</span> Legislation of the 63rd United States Congress

The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act, re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates. The act was sponsored by Representative Oscar Underwood, passed by the 63rd United States Congress, and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Income tax in the United States</span> Form of taxation in the United States

The United States federal government and most state governments impose an income tax. They 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.

Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction if the economic substance varies from its legal form.

Income taxes in Canada constitute the majority of the annual revenues of the Government of Canada, and of the governments of the Provinces of Canada. In the fiscal year ending 31 March 2018, the federal government collected just over three times more revenue from personal income taxes than it did from corporate income taxes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 is an Act of Parliament which governs the levying of capital gains tax in the United Kingdom. This is a tax on the increase in the value of an asset between the date of purchase and the date of sale of that asset. The tax operates under two different regimes for a natural person and a body corporate.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a taxpayer challenged the validity of a federal income tax on corporations. The privilege of incorporation is a state function, and the challengers argued that only the states should tax corporations. The Court ruled that the privilege of operating in corporate form is valuable and justifies imposition of a federal income 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.

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.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), is a United States Supreme Court case.

United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned an alleged violation of the Compensation Clause of the United States Constitution when Congress extended Medicare and Social Security taxes to federal judge salaries. Additionally, the case dealt with whether a later increase of federal judge salaries, greater than the new taxes, remedied the potential violation.

Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015), is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine to Maryland's personal income tax scheme and found that the failure to provide a full credit for income taxes paid to other states was unconstitutional.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913).
  2. Rosenberg, Joshua; Daher, Dominic (February 2008). The Law of Federal Income Taxation. Hornbook Series. ISBN   9781634594141.
  3. "What Is Constitutional Taxable Income ?". Tax Freedom. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  4. "WHERE DOES INCOME COME FROM ?". Tax Freedom. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  5. Rosenberg, Joshua; Daher, Dominic (2008). The Law of Federal Income Taxation. Hornbook. ISBN   9781634594141.
  6. Federal Income Tax Laws Correlated and Annotated. John Byrne & Company. 1922.