Towne v. Eisner

Towne v. Eisner
Towne v. Eisner
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12, 1917; Decided January 7, 1918
Full case name	Towne v. Eisner, Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York
Citations	245 U.S. 418 (more) 38 S. Ct. 158; 62 L. Ed. 372; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2143; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 14; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2959
Holding
	A stock dividend based on accumulated profits is not "income."
Court membership
	Chief Justice Edward D. White Associate Justices Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.; William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter; Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds; Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinions
Majority	Holmes, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke
Concurrence	McKenna
	Overruled by
	Eisner v. Macomber

Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "a stock dividend based on accumulated profits was not 'income' within the true intent of the statute."^[1] Congress passed a new law in reaction to Towne v. Eisner and so the case was soon overturned by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber.

It includes the quotable passage: “A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.^[2]

References[]

^ Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918). This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.
^ Towne v Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 425 (1918), quoted in Roberts, Harold S. (1986) [1966] Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.; Bureau of National Affairs), p. vii. ISBN 0-87179-488-8.

External links[]

Text of Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

[1] Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918). This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.

[2] Towne v Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 425 (1918), quoted in Roberts, Harold S. (1986) [1966] Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.; Bureau of National Affairs), p. vii. ISBN 0-87179-488-8.

[1]

[2]

v t United States Sixteenth Amendment case law
Scope	Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916) Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company (1916) (1916)
Income	Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert (1913) Towne v. Eisner (1918) Eisner v. Macomber (1920) Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926)
Taxable corporate dividends	(1918) (1918) (1918) (1918) Eisner v. Macomber (1920) United States v. Phellis (1921) (1921) (1921) (1922) (1923) (1924) (1925) (1936) (1937)
Taxable corporate earnings	(1925) (1925) (1932) (1932) (1938) (1938) (1940) (1940) Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955) (1955) (1960)
Taxable gains	(1921) (1921) Taft v. Bowers (1929) (1929) (1932) (1936) Helvering v. Bruun (1940) Helvering v. Horst (1940) Crane v. Commissioner (1947) United States v. Davis (1962) Commissioner v. Tufts (1983)
Unlawful income	United States v. Sullivan (1927) (1952) (1958) James v. United States (1961)
Deductions and exemptions	Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1915) Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co. (1931) (1932) (1934) (1938) (1956) (1958) (1958) Cammarano v. United States (1959) United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (1987)
Diminution of loss	Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926)

Towne v. Eisner
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918
Full case name	Towne v. Eisner, Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York
Citations	245 U.S. 418 (more) 38 S. Ct. 158; 62 L. Ed. 372; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2143; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 14; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2959
Holding
A stock dividend based on accumulated profits is not "income."
Court membership
Chief Justice Edward D. White Associate Justices Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr. William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinions
Majority	Holmes, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke
Concurrence	McKenna
Overruled by
Eisner v. Macomber