North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet

Last updated
North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 20–21, 1932
Decided May 23, 1932
Full case nameNorth American Oil Consolidated v. David Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Citations286 U.S. 417 ( more )
52 S. Ct. 613; 76 L. Ed. 1197; 1932 U.S. LEXIS 856
Case history
Prior12 B.T.A. 68 (1928); reversed, 50 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1931); cert. granted, 284 U.S. 614(1932).
Holding
The 1916 profits were taxable income to North American Oil in 1917 when the District Court determined that the company had a claim of right to the profits, even though litigation was ongoing at that time.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinion
MajorityBrandeis, joined by unanimous

North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 (1932), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established the claim of right doctrine. [1]

Contents

Background

Facts

This case involved the North American Oil Consolidated (hereinafter North American Oil) company which operated several properties in 1916. [2] One of the properties was a section of oil land, and the United States held the legal title to the property. [1] The income earned from the property in 1916 was recorded in North American Oil's books as income.

In 1915, the United States government filed a suit to remove North American Oil from the property, and on February 2, 1916, the court appointed a receiver to operate the property and hold the income derived from the property while litigation ensued. [3]

In 1917, North American Oil was paid the 1916 profits which were acquired during the receivership by order of the District Court. [4] The government appealed, but it was not until 1920 that the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. [1] Finally, in 1922, a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was dismissed by stipulation. [1]

In 1918, North American Oil filed an amended tax return including the profits from the receivership in its 1916 taxable income. The IRS filed a deficiency, claiming that the income North American Oil gained from receivership should have been taxed in 1917 when they achieved control of it. The Board of Tax Appeals found that the money was taxable to the receiver in 1916. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that the profits were taxable to the company as income in 1917. North American Oil appealed on the basis that the income was taxable either in 1916 when it was earned, or 1922 when the final decision regarding the land was made, and was granted a writ of certiorari.

Issue

Whether the profits paid to North American Oil in 1917 were taxable income for that particular year.

Analysis

The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) argued that the 1916 profits should be included in the 1917 taxable year. [1] North American Oil had not entered the profit as income in 1916 but did include it in an amended return for 1916 in 1918. [1]

North American Oil appealed the IRS’ decision, and the Board of Tax Appeals held that the profits were taxable to the receiver as income in 1916 and made no finding whether the company’s accounts were kept on the cash receipts and disbursements basis or on the accrual basis. [1] The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the profits were taxable to North American Oil as income in 1917 regardless of whether the company’s returns were made on the cash or on the accrual basis. [5]

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court of Appeals. [6] The Court analyzed the facts and arrived at three main conclusions:

  1. The 1916 profits received by the receiver in 1916 were not income to the receiver. [7]
  2. The 1916 profits were not taxable to North American Oil as income in 1916 because it did not know, at that point, whether it would ever actually receive the money. [8] North American Oil had no accession to wealth, or control of the income at that point. [1] [9] Through 1916, it was uncertain who was entitled to the profits. [8]
  3. The 1916 profits were not income in the year 1922—when the final judgment was entered and the litigation was finally terminated. [6] North American Oil had a right to the 1916 profits in 1917, by order of the District Court. [1] The Court held, “If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.” [1] It was in 1917 that the profits became entitled to them, and they achieved access to and control of the gains. If the 1922 decision had ruled in favor of the government, North American Oil would have been entitled to a deduction in the amount of those lost profits.

Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court of Appeals. [1] The 1916 profits were taxable income to North American Oil in 1917 when the District Court determined that the company had a claim of right to the profits, even though litigation was ongoing at that time.

Impact

This case is significant for all taxpaying individuals, even into the 21st century, because the court articulated a claim of right doctrine. [10] This doctrine generally states that when a taxpayer receives income for which they have a claim of right, it is then included as income in that year, when that claim of right is established. [11] Later, if it turns out that the taxpayer must return the income, then the taxpayer will generally be entitled to take a deduction for the returned amount. [11]

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.

Tax noncompliance is a range of activities that are unfavorable to a government's tax system. This may include tax avoidance, which is tax reduction by legal means, and tax evasion which is the criminal non-payment of tax liabilities. The use of the term "noncompliance" is used differently by different authors. Its most general use describes non-compliant behaviors with respect to different institutional rules resulting in what Edgar L. Feige calls unobserved economies. Non-compliance with fiscal rules of taxation gives rise to unreported income and a tax gap that Feige estimates to be in the neighborhood of $500 billion annually for the United States.

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.

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.

<i>Murphy v. IRS</i>

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void, by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers regarding both criminal procedure and civil matters. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to any "person." The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In United States income tax law, an installment sale is generally a "disposition of property where at least 1 loan payment is to be received after the close of the taxable year in which the disposition occurs." The term "installment sale" does not include, however, a "dealer disposition" or, generally, a sale of inventory. The installment method of accounting provides an exception to the general principles of income recognition by allowing a taxpayer to defer the inclusion of income of amounts that are to be received from the disposition of certain types of property until payment in cash or cash equivalents is received. The installment method defers the recognition of income when compared with both the cash and accrual methods of accounting. Under the cash method, the taxpayer would recognize the income when it is received, including the entire sum paid in the form of a negotiable note. The deferral advantages of the installment method are the most pronounced when comparing to the accrual method, under which a taxpayer must recognize income as soon as he or she has a right to the income.

Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 (1931), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

In the tax law of the United States the claim of right doctrine causes a taxpayer to recognize income if they receive the income even though they do not have a fixed right to the income. For the income to qualify as being received there must be a receipt of cash or property that ordinarily constitutes income rather than loans or gifts or deposits that are returnable, the taxpayer needs unlimited control on the use or disposition of the funds, and the taxpayer must hold and treat the income as its own. This law is largely created by the courts, but some aspects have been codified into the Internal Revenue Code.

Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney's fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.

<i>Warren Jones Co. v. Commissioner</i>

Warren Jones Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 524 F.2d 788 was a taxation decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Surrogatum is a thing put in the place of another or a substitute. The Surrogatum Principle pertains to a Canadian income tax principle involving a person who suffers harm caused by another and may seek compensation for (a) loss of income, (b) expenses incurred, (c) property destroyed, or (d) personal injury, as well as punitive damages, under the surrogatum principle, the tax consequences of a damage or settlement payment depend on the tax treatment of the item for which the payment is intended to substitute.

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.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

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

United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 239 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case, which hold that under 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation 1.461-1(a)(2), the "all events" test entitled an accrual-basis taxpayer to a federal income tax business-expense deduction, for the taxable year in which (1) all events had occurred which determined the fact of the taxpayer's liability, and (2) the amount of that liability could be determined with reasonable accuracy.

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations.

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. 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. The Collector of Internal Revenue determined that the entire income should have been reported in Mr. Seaborn's return. 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. 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.

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.

United States v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590 (1951), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States affirming the claim of right doctrine in income tax law. A lower court had ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to issue a refund to man who, after other litigation found his bonus to have been miscalculated, was forced to return some of his income from a previous year to his former employer. The Supreme Court ruled that because the man had complete control of the money, his tax payment was correct and he could not get a refund—though he could still claim it as a loss on a subsequent tax return.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 (1932).
  2. Burnet, 286 U.S. at 420.
  3. Burnet, 286 U.S. at 420-21.
  4. Burnet, 286 U.S. at 421.
  5. Burnet, 286 U.S. at 421-22.
  6. 1 2 Burnet, 286 U.S. at 424.
  7. Burnet, 286 U.S. at 422-23.
  8. 1 2 Burnet, 286 U.S. at 423.
  9. The Court would later articulate its position on what constitutes income. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. , 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955) (noting that income is determined by: (1) undeniable accession to wealth; (2) clearly realized; (3) over which the taxpayer has complete dominion).
  10. Donaldson, Samuel A. (2007). Federal Income Taxation of Individuals: Cases, Problems and Materials (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West. pp. 144–145. ISBN   978-0-314-14429-4.
  11. 1 2 Segal, Mark A. (2004). "Factors and Considerations in the Claim of Right Doctrine". The CPA Journal.

Further reading