Stock dividends

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 175754061X

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-136496

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Stock dividends

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: U.S. Gov. Print. Off.

Year of publication:: 1927

Scope:: vii, 273 S.

Digitisation:: 2021

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: [Appendix]

Collection:: Economics Books

STOCK DIVIDENDS fe SE So 43 Western Union Telegraph Co., 93 N. Y. 162, 189.) The stock in question was based on earnings which had been accumulated by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913—that is, prior to the adoption of the sixteenth amendment— and neither this stock nor the accumulated surplus which it represented was subject to taxation without apportionment as being income within the meaning of that amendment. It is the decided weight of authority even in those juris- dictions which have established a doctrine of apportionment between the tenant for life and remainderman, that a “stock dividend” does not go to the life bene- ficiary of the income, in case the stock, where it is issued after the creation of the life tenancy, is based on surplus accumulated before the life tenancy began. (Matter of Osborne, 209 N. Y., 450; Lang ». Lang’s Executor, 57 N. J. Eq. 325; Day ». Faulks, 79 N. J. Eq. 66; 81 id. 173; Will of Pabst, 146 Wisconsin, 330.) The courts upon whose decisions the Government has relied look through the “stock dividend’ to the fund upon which it is based. This is a limitation incon- sistent with the position that the “stock dividend” should be regarded as income per se. And when, in this case, we look through the stock dividend to the fund upon which it rests, we find a surplus invested in plant and property, all of which had been accumulated prior to January 1, 1913. The sixteenth amendment had no application to income or earnings accumulated prior to its adoption. It was not the purpose to endow the Congress with power to reach, without apportion- ment, accumulations of property already effected. (Shreveport v. Colo, 129 U. S. 36, 43; Brushaber ». Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 20.) “Income” in an income tax law, unless it is otherwise specified, means cash or its equivalent. It does not mean choses in action or unrealized increments in the value of property. United States v. Schillinger, 14 Blatchf, 71; Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63, 66; Baldwin Locomotive Works ». McCoach, 221 Fed. Rep. 59. The stock in question was not a “dividend” within the meaning of the word “dividends” used in the act of 1913. If Congress had intended to embrace “stock dividends” based on surplus accumulations capitalized, Congress would have said so. (Hyatt ». Allen, 56 N. Y. 553, 556; Gibbons ». Mahon, 136 U. 8S. 549, 569; Income tax act of 1913, sec. II, subd. 2-B, 38 Stat. 166.) The tax for which the act of 1913 provides is an annual tax upon the entire net income arising or accruing in the preceding calendar year. For the year 1913 the tax was to be computed on the net income accuring after March 1. (Sec. II, A, subd. 2, D; Gray ». Darlington, supra; Merchants’ Ins. Co., o. MeCartney, 1 Lowell, 447; Bailey v. Railroad Co., 106 U. S. 109; People ». Albany Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 458, 462; Gauley Mountain Coal Co. v. Hays, 230 Fed. Rep. 110; Doyle v. Mitchell, 235 Fed. Rep. 686; C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. United States, 242 Fed. Rep. 18; Lynch ». Turrish, 236 Fed. Rep. 653.) When Congress under- took to tax “stock dividends” it. provided for the tax in express terms and excluded “stock dividends’ based on surplus accumulations existing prior to March 1, 1913. (Act of Sept. 8, 1916, 39 Stat. 756, § 2, (a), (c); Kori v. United States, 152 U. 8. 570, 577; war revenue act of October 3, 1917, § 1211, 40 Stat. 336, adding to income tax act, § 31.) i The Solicitor General, with whom Mr. William, C. Herron was on the brief, for defendant in error: =¥ Ag the case does not involve the constitutionality, but merely the construction, of a law of the United States—the income-tax section of the act of October 3, 1913—the writ of error should be dismissed. (American Sugar Refining Co. ». United States, 211 U. S. 155, 161, 162; Arbuckle ». Blackburn, 191 OB. 405, 415; Cosmopolitan Mining Co. ». Walsh, 193 U. S. 460, 471, 472; Lamar ». United States, 240 U. S. 60, 65; Shaw v. United States, 212 U. S. 559; Sloan v. United States, 193 U. S. 614, 620.) The question is whether the stock dividend was a mere readjustment of capital or whether it constituted income to the plaintiff. This is a question to be determined by a construction of the statute and does not involve the Constitution. The constitutionality of the act is settled by Brushaber ». Union Pacific R. R. Co. (240 U. 8. 1). The claim that the act is unconstitutional if construed to cover dividends, whether in stock or in cash, derived from earnings prior to the sixteenth amend- ment, is denied in Brushaber». Union Pacific R. R. Co., supra; Stanton ». Baltic Mining Co. (240 U. S. 103); Edwards ». Keith (231 Fed. Rep. 110; certiorari denied, 243 U. S. 638). See also Memphis &e. R. R. Co. v. United States (108 U. S. 228, 234.) «Stocks dividends’ are taxable under the provisions of the act of 1913. The term “dividends” denotes merely a species falling within the genus “income,” and the question is whether “stock dividends” are included within the term “income arising or accruing from all sources.” “Capital” represents the wealth

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Stock dividends

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation