This case involved a twelve-day expense-paid trip to Germany for Mr. and Mrs. Gotcher to tour Volkswagen facilities in Germany.[2] The trip cost $1,372.30. Mr. Gotcher’s employer, Economy Motors, paid $348.73 while the remainder, $1,023.53, was paid by Volkswagen of Germany and Volkswagen of America.[2] Mr. and Mrs. Gotcher failed to include any part of the $1,372.30 in gross income for income tax purposes for 1960.[2] The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed a tax deficiency after determining the taxpayers (the Gotchers) had realized income of $1,372.30 from the trip. The Gotchers paid the deficiency and filed suit for a refund.[3] The district court held that the cost of the trip was not income, or in the alternative, that the cost of the trip was income and deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense.[4]
Issue
At issue was whether the cost of the trip was taxable income to Mr. and Mrs. Gotcher under Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Analysis and holding
For an item to constitute taxable income to the taxpayer, there must be economic gain to the taxpayer, and the economic gain must primarily benefit the taxpayer personally.[4] The Gotchers received an indirect economic gain by receiving a benefit (the value of the trip) without any reduction in their wealth. The court considered the specific details of the trip, including the purpose of the trip, time spent in meetings, the location of day trips, and whether the trip was an award for past service.[5] The court conducted this analysis for the purpose of determining whether the primary benefit of the trip was to the Gotchers or whether the primary benefit of the trip was to Volkswagen and the employers.
The court referenced Section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code, which excludes from the gross income of an employee "the value of meals and lodging furnished to him for the convenience of the employer," as guidance for the decision.[5] The court also cited the case McDonell v. Commissioner, 26 T.C.M. 115, Tax Ct. Mem. 1967-18.[6][7]McDonnell held that a taxpayer received no income when he was required by his employer to go on a business trip and that he was serving a legitimate business purpose even if he enjoyed the trip.[6]
The Fifth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the lower court decision.[8] The court found that the agenda was related primarily to business, the details of the trip were primarily controlled by Volkswagen, and that Mr. Gotcher's attendance was prompted by business considerations, primarily, to induce Mr. Gotcher to take interest in a Volkswagen dealership when Volkswagen was attempting to expand in the United States.[9] Thus, the primary benefit of the trip was to Volkswagen as far as Mr. Gotcher was concerned, and thus the cost of trip was not income to him.[9]
However, the Court found that for Mrs. Gotcher, the trip was primarily a vacation.[8] She did not attend discussions with Volkswagen or their dealers or make tours with her husband.[8] Thus, the expenses attributable to Mrs. Gotcher should be included in Mr. Gotcher's income.[8] Her attendance was primarily to his personal benefit, and there was no evidence on the record that her presence served a bona fide business purpose.[8]
Impact of decision
For income tax purposes, the case is notable for the articulation of the "primary benefit to the provider doctrine." If individual receives an economic gain, but the primary benefit is to the provider of the gain, then such gain is not income to the individual. The articulation of the doctrine is open to question, as almost all payments could be characterized as providing the primary benefit to the provider. A business only pays employees for the benefit of labor which will provide greater returns than expenses and contract consideration is only furnished to receive a preferred gain. However, employee income (as compensation for services) and contract consideration (as compensation for services, gains from dealings in property, and many other categories) are regularly taxed.[10]
That this case attributes income only to Mrs. Gotcher, clearly diminishes any benefit derived from her presence in Germany to Mr. Gotcher's employer, or the Volkswagens. Although the evidence was nonexistent as to her presence being necessary to her husband’s conducting of business in this case, one can imagine other scenarios where a spouse performs significant work to advance the conducting of his or her partner's business.[original research?]
Examples might include: companies that expect attendees to bring his or her spouse, partners who organize social events for other spouses while the attendees are in meetings, partners who engage in unofficial accounting, transcribing, or decision-making with his or her attendee partner, etc. The statement, "a single trip by a wife with her husband to Europe has been specifically rejected as not being the exceptional type of case justifying a deduction,"[8] has insidious ramifications for tax (and social) consequences of women (or men) that perform legitimate work on behalf of their partner or spouse. It creates a presumption wherein a partner or spouse's presence is not seen as necessary to the conducting of business.[citation needed]
Perhaps the concurring opinion articulates even more clearly the popular belief about women's informal work performed on behalf of their partner’s business.[original research?] It states, "Attributing income to the little wife who was neither an employee, a prospective employee, nor a dealer, for the value of a trip she neither planned nor chose still bothers me."[8]
Notes
↑ United States v. Gotcher,401F.2d118(5th Cir.1968).
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.
In the United States, a 401(k) plan is an employer-sponsored, defined-contribution, personal pension (savings) account, as defined in subsection 401(k) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Periodical employee contributions come directly out of their paychecks, and may be matched by the employer. This legal option is what makes 401(k) plans attractive to employees, and many employers offer this option to their (full-time) workers.
In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and is administered by the Social Security Administration. The original Social Security Act was enacted in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs.
An individual retirement account (IRA) in the United States is a form of pension provided by many financial institutions that provides tax advantages for retirement savings. It is a trust that holds investment assets purchased with a taxpayer's earned income for the taxpayer's eventual benefit in old age. An individual retirement account is a type of individual retirement arrangement as described in IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs). Other arrangements include employer-established benefit trusts and individual retirement annuities, by which a taxpayer purchases an annuity contract or an endowment contract from a life insurance company.
A Roth IRA is an individual retirement account (IRA) under United States law that is generally not taxed upon distribution, provided certain conditions are met. The principal difference between Roth IRAs and most other tax-advantaged retirement plans is that rather than granting a tax reduction for contributions to the retirement plan, qualified withdrawals from the Roth IRA plan are tax-free, and growth in the account is tax-free.
A registered retirement savings plan (RRSP), or retirement savings plan (RSP), is a type of financial account in Canada for holding savings and investment assets. RRSPs have various tax advantages compared to investing outside of tax-preferred accounts. They were introduced in 1957 to promote savings for retirement by employees and self-employed people.
Taxation in the United Kingdom may involve payments to at least three different levels of government: central government, devolved governments and local government. Central government revenues come primarily from income tax, National Insurance contributions, value added tax, corporation tax and fuel duty. Local government revenues come primarily from grants from central government funds, business rates in England, Council Tax and increasingly from fees and charges such as those for on-street parking. In the fiscal year 2014–15, total government revenue was forecast to be £648 billion, or 37.7 per cent of GDP, with net taxes and National Insurance contributions standing at £606 billion.
A retirement plan is a financial arrangement designed to replace employment income upon retirement. These plans may be set up by employers, insurance companies, trade unions, the government, or other institutions. Congress has expressed a desire to encourage responsible retirement planning by granting favorable tax treatment to a wide variety of plans. Federal tax aspects of retirement plans in the United States are based on provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the plans are regulated by the Department of Labor under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
A gift tax or known originally as inheritance 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."
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.
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.
Adams v. United States, 585 F.2d 1060 was a case in which the United States Court of Claims held that the fair rental value of the residence furnished to the taxpayer by his employer was excludable from taxpayer's gross income. The three statutory requisites for exclusion were met pursuant to Section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code. Three requirements for lodging under §119: (1) acceptance of residence was a condition of employment, (2) for the convenience of the employer, and (3) was on the business premises.
Same-sex unions in the United States are available in various forms in all states and territories, except American Samoa. All states have legal same-sex marriage, while others have the options of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships. The federal government only recognizes marriage and no other legal union for same-sex couples.
In the United States, the question whether any compensation plan is qualified or non-qualified is primarily a question of taxation under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Any business prefers to deduct its expenses from its income, which will reduce the income subject to taxation. Expenses which are deductible ("qualified") have satisfied tests required by the IRC. Expenses which do not satisfy those tests ("non-qualified") are not deductible; even though the business has incurred the expense, the amount of that expenditure remains as part of taxable income. In most situations, any business will attempt to satisfy the requirements so that its expenditures are deductible business expenses.
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.
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.
Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956), was an income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.
A Solo 401(k) is a 401(k) qualified retirement plan for Americans that was designed specifically for employers with no full-time employees other than the business owner(s) and their spouse(s). The general 401(k) plan gives employees an incentive to save for retirement by allowing them to designate funds as 401(k) funds and thus not have to pay taxes on them until the employee reaches retirement age. In this plan, both the employee and his/her employer may make contributions to the plan. The Solo 401(k) is unique because it only covers the business owner(s) and their spouse(s), thus, not subjecting the 401(k) plan to the complex ERISA rules, which sets minimum standards for employer pension plans with non-owner employees. Self-employed workers who qualify for the Solo 401(k) can receive the same tax benefits as in a general 401(k) plan, but without the employer being subject to the complexities of ERISA.
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.
