Commissioner v duberstein. Commissioner v. Duberstein Case Brief 2019-01-25

Commissioner v duberstein Rating: 5,2/10 1980 reviews

Commissioner v. Duberstein Case Brief

commissioner v duberstein

These provisions assure that like taxpayers who work for different employers are not taxed alike. Taxpayer had nothing to do with the planning of the dinner and objected to it. In a separate case, Stanton was an employee of a church for approximately ten years. Consider the exclusion from gross income of scholarships or the rental value of parsonages. Read § 117 b 1 and Reg. They both work and earn substantial incomes.

Next

Briefcat: Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278 (1960): Case Brief

commissioner v duberstein

As the last step in its restructuring of prior law, the Senate adopted an additional restriction, created by the House and not theretofore a part of the law, which required that meals subject to exclusion had to be taken on the business premises of the employer. For all that appears, the District Court may have viewed the form of the resolution or the simple absence of legal consideration as conclusive. While the judgment of the Court of Appeals cannot stand, the four of us think there must be further proceedings in the District Court looking toward new and adequate findings of fact. Consider: Moldaur is the son of a professor at the Mega State University. What controls is not the presence or absence of consideration. Moreover, Benaglia was denied the discretion to spend this accession to wealth in any manner that he saw fit. United States — both rest on the proposition that the convenience of the employer can be inferred from the characterization given the cash payments by the employer, and the heart of this proposition is undercut by both the language of § 119 and the Senate Report.

Next

Commissioner v. Duberstein :: 363 U.S. 278 (1960) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

commissioner v duberstein

The oddly-shaped building stood empty for several years. At the meeting of the former stockholders of Universal, the former president of that company, then president of the Unopco Corporation, said that they had reason to congratulate themselves on their great good fortune in the Universal Company, which started with nothing and had been built up in a phenomenal way; that they had profited largely; that during the years when they were struggling and moving forward they had had the loyal support of a number of employees, and he thought it would be a nice and generous thing to show their appreciation by remembering them in the form of a gift or honorarium. Instead, when determining whether something is a gift for taxation purposes, the critical consideration is the transferor's intention. United States Stanton worked for the in as the comptroller of the Church corporation and president of the corporation. Kratzke, The Im Balance of Externalities in Employment-Based Exclusions from Gross Income, 60 Tax Law. Hence, payment of federal estate or gift tax does not affect liability for federal income tax, and vice versa.


Next

Commissioner v. Duberstein

commissioner v duberstein

He believed that both were gifts. But I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Stanton v. It was further stipulated: 'Said payments were not made or intended to be made by said Unopco Corporation or any of its stockholders as payment or compensation for any services rendered or to be rendered or for any consideration given or to be given by any of said employees, attorneys or experts to said Unopco Corporation or to any of its stockholders. They would often talk on the phone and give each other names of potential customers. Consider: did the Diedrich children pay their parents anything for the property, or did they give a gift to their parents, and if so, what was it? Under such a rationale, the proceeds would be excluded from gross income by § 102. Moreover, Mesquite Airlines has entered into a reciprocal agreement with several other airlines whereby employees of Mesquite may fly standby for free on other airlines, and employees of the other airlines may fly free on Mesquite Airlines. On this basis, and because of the importance of the question in the administration of the income tax laws, we granted certiorari in both cases.

Next

BOGARDUS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

commissioner v duberstein

Compensation: Automobile received from business friend: Payment to resigning officer: Test for gift June 13, 1960 , U. In any event, the Court's opinion in Bogardusdoes not seem to have been so interpreted afterwards. An exclusion is not the same as a deduction. Two years later, the Tax Court, in an unreviewed decision in Doran v. The Commissioner assessed an income tax deficiency against him for failure to include this amount in his gross income. The statute definitely distinguishes between compensation on the one hand and gifts on the other hand; the former being taxable and the latter free from taxation. After receiving some particularly helpful information, Berman decided to give Duberstein a gift of a.

Next

Commissioner v. Duberstein

commissioner v duberstein

The Government admits that there are exceptions and qualifications to these propositions. The Commissioner says it is not a gift, since the payor did not intend it as a gift, and Court of Appeals reverses, saying it is a gift and therefore tax-free. Duberstein did not include the value of the Cadillac in gross income for 1951, deeming it a gift. Although Duberstein said he did not need the car as he already had a Cadillac and an , he eventually accepted it. Employment-Based Exclusions from Gross Income The employment relationship is the seat of a very substantial number of exclusions from gross income. Sports World agreed to give only a 10% discount for the employees of these service merchants.


Next

Commissioner v. Duberstein

commissioner v duberstein

In other words, the thing that was decided upon and intended, in that case as in this case, was misdescribed in the resolutions to carry the decision and intention into effect. The taxpayer, Stanton, had been for approximately 10 years in the employ of Trinity Church in New York City. Mimeograph 6472 expressly modified all previous rulings which had suggested that meals and lodging could be excluded from income upon a simple finding that the furnishing of such benefits was necessary to allow an employee to perform his duties properly. The problem in these two cases is entirely different from the problem in a case where a payment is made from one member of a family to another, where the implications are directly otherwise. In the movie, Capitalism: A Love Story 2009 , Michael Moore recounts how Wal-Mart purchased life insurance policies on the lives of low-paid persons. In 1947, he was elected international vice president. Duberstein if he knew the names of certain customers who used chemical products which were sold by the Mohawk Company but not by Duberstein's company and if Mr.

Next

Commissioner v. Duberstein : Wikis (The Full Wiki)

commissioner v duberstein

The approach taken in Doran is the same as that in Mim. The committee believes, therefore, that many present practices under which employers may provide to a broad group of employees, either free or at a discount, the products and services which the employer sells or provides to the public do not serve merely to replace cash compensation. Instead, when determining whether something is a gift for taxation purposes, the critical consideration is the transferor's intention. The intent is shown by the appeal made at the stockholders' meeting to the effect that it would be a nice and generous thing for these former stockholders of the Universal to show their appreciation of the past loyalty of that company's employees by remembering them in the form of a 'gift or honorarium,' and by the common understanding then reached that the stockholders would make the suggested 'presents or gifts' to these employees. I think the finding was not clearly erroneous, and that the Court of Appeals was therefore wrong in reversing the District Court's judgment. The effect of this is to give taxpayers in the highest tax bracket a windfall, i. For that reason, § 72 e 1 did not apply.

Next