Bowers v. Co, KERBAUGH-EMPIRE

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBUTLER
Citation70 L.Ed. 886,46 S.Ct. 449,271 U.S. 170
PartiesBOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. CO
Docket NumberKERBAUGH-EMPIRE,No. 173
Decision Date03 May 1926

271 U.S. 170
46 S.Ct. 449
70 L.Ed. 886
BOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue,

v.

KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.

No. 173.
Argued Jan. 25, 1926.
Decided May 3, 1926.

Mr. Attorney General and Mrs. Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt, for plaintiff in error.

Page 171

Mr. Franklin Nevius, of New York City, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Defendant in error, a New York corporation, sued to recover $5,198.77 paid under protest on account of income taxes for 1921. Revenue Act 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 252, et seq. (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 6336 1/8 a et seq.).

It owned all the capital stock of H. S. Kerbaugh, Incorporated, engaged in the performance of large construction contracts, and applied to the Deutsche Bank of Germany,

Page 172

through its New York representative, for loans to finance the work being done by its subsidiary. The bank agreed that it would make the loans by cabling to the credit of its New York representative German marks equivalent in dollars to the requirements of defendant in error, upon condition that the loans would be evidenced by notes payable as to principal and interest in marks or their equivalent in United States gold coin at prime bankers' rate in New York for cable transfers to Berlin. June 8, 1911, defendant in error advised the New York representative of the amount in dollars then needed; he notified his principal and it put to his credit in a New York bank marks equivalent to the amount of money of the United States applied for. Then he drew his check payable in dollars against the credit and gave it to defendant in error, and in exchange received the promissory note of the latter payable in marks or their equivalent in gold coin of the United States. Prior to July 2, 1913, 24 loans were made in this manner, amounting in all to $1,983,000. The equivalent in marks was 8,341,337.50. September 1, 1913, there remained unpaid 6,740,800 marks. The notes of defendant in error then outstanding were surrendered and its new note for that amount was given. And when that note became due it was renewed. Partial payments were made and, by March 31, 1915, the principal was reduced to 3,216,445 marks.

The several amounts from time to time borrowed by defendant in error were contemporaneously advanced to its subsidiary and were expended and lost in and about the performance of the construction contracts. These losses were sustained in 1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, and 1918, and were allowed as deductions in the subsidiary's income tax returns for those years. The excess of its losses over income was more than the amount here claimed by plaintiff in error to be income of defendant in error in 1921.

Page 173

After the United States entered the War the Deutsche Bank was an alien enemy. In 1921, on the demand of the Alien Property Custodian, defendant in error paid him $113,688.23 in full settlement of principal and interest owing on the note belonging to the bank. Of that amount $80,411.12 represented principal. The settlement was on the basis of 2 1/2 cents per mark. Measured by United States gold coin the difference between the value of the marks borrowed at the time the loans were made and the amount paid to the Custodian was $684,456.18. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, notwithstanding the claim of defendant in error that the amount borrowed had been lost in construction operations carried on by it and its subsidiary, and that no income resulted from the transaction, held the amount to be income and chargeable to defendant in error for 1921. Excluding that item, the tax return for 1921 shows a deficit of $581,254.77.

The defendant in error by its complaint set forth the facts above stated and asserted-as it still insists-that the diminution in value of the marks was not income within the meaning of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
166 practice notes
  • Union Packing Co. v. Rogan, No. 1071.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • January 21, 1937
    ...414, Ann.Cas.1917B, 713; Peck & Co. v. Lowe (1918) 247 U.S. 165, 38 S.Ct. 432, 62 L.Ed. 1049; Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926) 271 U.S. 170, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886. In determining the validity of any tax, income, or other, the relation between the exercise of the taxing power and th......
  • Flora v. United States, No. 492
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1960
    ...Leavitt v. Hendricksen, 37—4 CCH Fed.Tax Serv. 9312 (D.C.W.D.Wash.1937) (no unpaid assessment); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 1926, 271 U.S. 170, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886 (all due installments paid); Cook v. Tait, 1924, 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 (same). Four pre-1941 cases ......
  • Nat'l-Standard Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 8574-80.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • March 21, 1983
    ...repayment in the same foreign currency and in the same amount does not give rise to taxable gain or loss. Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 175 (1926); B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 1098, 1102-1103 (1943); Coverdale v. Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion of this Court......
  • Penn Mut. Indem. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 55553.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • June 15, 1959
    ...losses, is not a tax on ‘income’ within the meaning of the 16th amendment. Eisner v. Macomber, supra; Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926). In the latter case, involving losses, the Supreme Court had the following to say: In determining what constitutes income substance rather......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
164 cases
  • Union Packing Co. v. Rogan, No. 1071.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • January 21, 1937
    ...414, Ann.Cas.1917B, 713; Peck & Co. v. Lowe (1918) 247 U.S. 165, 38 S.Ct. 432, 62 L.Ed. 1049; Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926) 271 U.S. 170, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886. In determining the validity of any tax, income, or other, the relation between the exercise of the taxing power and th......
  • Nat'l-Standard Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 8574-80.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • March 21, 1983
    ...repayment in the same foreign currency and in the same amount does not give rise to taxable gain or loss. Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 175 (1926); B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Commissioner, 1 T.C. 1098, 1102-1103 (1943); Coverdale v. Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion of this Court......
  • Penn Mut. Indem. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 55553.
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • June 15, 1959
    ...losses, is not a tax on ‘income’ within the meaning of the 16th amendment. Eisner v. Macomber, supra; Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926). In the latter case, involving losses, the Supreme Court had the following to say: In determining what constitutes income substance rather......
  • Flora v. United States, No. 492
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1960
    ...Leavitt v. Hendricksen, 37—4 CCH Fed.Tax Serv. 9312 (D.C.W.D.Wash.1937) (no unpaid assessment); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 1926, 271 U.S. 170, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886 (all due installments paid); Cook v. Tait, 1924, 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 (same). Four pre-1941 cases ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT