Clain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Helvering v. Thomson
| Decision Date | 06 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 55,58,s. 55 |
| Citation | 311 U.S. 527,85 L.Ed. 319,61 S.Ct. 373 |
| Parties | McCLAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. THOMSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edward D. Smith, Jr., and M. E. Kilpatrick, both of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Helen R. Carloss, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Mr. T. F. Davies Haines, of New York City, for respondent Thomson.
These cases present the question whether upon the surrender of bonds or debentures in exchange for a money payment less than cost, a taxpayer may deduct the loss from his gross income as a bad debt under § 23(k)1 or must treat it as a capital loss under § 117(f)2 of the Revenue Act of 1934.
In number 55 it appears that the taxpayer owned $15,000 par value of bonds of a water district, acquired by gift. The district being in financial difficulties offered to pay $7,476.75 for them. The offer was accepted and the bonds delivered. In his tax return the taxpayer claimed a deduction of $7,523.25 as for a bad debt charged off. The Commissioner disallowed the deduction, and the Board of Tax Appeals and the Circuit Court of Appeals3 sustained his ruling.
In number 58 the facts are that the taxpayer bought $25,000 par value of debentures for $24,750. The issuer's affairs were placed in the hands of a receiver. A plan of reorganization provided that the receiver should pay $5 for each $1,000 debenture surrendered for cancellation. The taxpayer availed himself of this privision, and in his tax return claimed a deduction of $24,625, as for a bad debt. The Commissioner disallowed the claim and the Board of Tax Appeals affirmed his decision. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.4
By reason of the conflict of decision we granted certiorari in both cases. 310 U.S. 620, 60 S.Ct. 1079, 1082, 84 L.Ed. 1393.
The earlier revenue acts contained sections similar to 23(k) of the Act of 1934. They also embodied provisions for calculation of taxes on capital net gains. None of them included any section like 117(f). Prior to the adoption of the 1934 Act it had been held that the phrase 'sale or exchange' of capital assets, employed in those acts, was not descriptive of the redemption or call for repayment of corporate securities, and hence gain thereby occasioned was to be treated as ordinary income5, and loss so arising was to be deducted from gross income as a bad debt.6
The Revenue Act of 1934, by subsection (f) of § 117, provided that for the purposes of the title dealing with capital gains and losses, 'amounts received by the holder upon the retirement' of such securities as are here involved, 'shall be considered as amounts received in exchange therefor'.
It is plain that Congress intended by the new sub-section (f) to take out of the bad debt provision certain transactions and to place them in the category of capital gains and losses. The question is whether by employing the word 'retirement' the transactions here involved were so transferred. We hold that they were.
'Retirement' aptly describes what occurred in the instant cases. The statute does not use the word in an unusual or artificial sense. In common understanding and according to dictionary definition the word 'retirement' is broader in scope than 'redemption'; is not, as contended, synonymous with the latter, but includes it. Nothing in the legislative history of the provision requires us to attribute to the term used a meaning narrower than its accepted meaning in common speech.
The taxpayer in number 58 urges that to hold sub-section (f) applicable in his case would give the provision an unjust effect, since, if he had refused to surrender his debentures for the trifling consideration offered, he could have charged off their whole cost as a bad debt under § 23(k). The answer is that we must apply the statute as we find it, leaving to Congress the correction of asserted inconsistencies and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Motors Corporation v. Blevins
...The courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words. McClain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1941, 311 U.S. 527, 61 S.Ct. 373, 85 L.Ed. 319. Colorado has the rule that in construing statutory amendments it is fundamental that change in meaning......
-
State v. Aiuppa
...legislature the correction of assorted inconsistences and inequalities in its operation' at 530. McClain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 311 U.S. 527, 61 S.Ct. 373, 85 L.Ed. 319 (1940). 'The Legislature, if it should desire, may properly legislate against the exhibition and sale of obs......
-
United States v. Corporation
...dismissed, 111 Fed.(2d) 644. Section 117(f), supra, appeared for the first time in the Revenue Act of 1934. In McClain v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 527 (61 S.Ct. 373, 85 L.Ed. 319), the Supreme Court said: 'It is plain that Congress intended by the new sub-section (f) to take out of the bad de......
-
Breen v. CIR
...bad debt provision certain transactions and to place them in the category of capital gains and losses", McClain v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 527, 529, 61 S.Ct. 373, 375, 85 L.Ed. 319 (1941). No alternative contention, however, is made by this taxpayer that § 1232 has any application to these c......
-
Troubled Waters: Navigating the Tax Issues of Llcs With Bridge Debt
...Impact on Character of Loss on Partner Loans, in CCH Partnership Tax Planning and Practice ¶ 9768.25. See § 1271(a)(1); McClain v. Comm'r, 311 U.S. 527 (1941); Levy v. Comm'r, 131 F.2d 544 (2d Cir. 1942), aff'g 46 B.T.A. 423 (1942). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.1502-13(g)(7)(ii), Example 3 (cre......
-
Sec. 1271(a) - a pitfall for unwary corporate creditors.
...Sec. 1271 purposes. The Supreme Court, in a case involving the predecessors to both Secs. 1271 and 166, defined the term broadly (McClain, 311 US 527 (1941)), so that a retirement may occur when all or a part of a debt is extinguished in exchange for property. Thus, Sec. 1271 may be implica......