Cooper v. United States, 93
Citation | 50 S.Ct. 164,280 U.S. 409,74 L.Ed. 516 |
Decision Date | 24 February 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 93,93 |
Parties | COOPER v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Wayne Johnson, of New York City, for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Charles E. Hughes, Jr., Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C. for the United States.
Petitioner paid income taxes assessed according to her return for the calendar year 1921; thereafter, by suit in the Court of Claims, she sought to recover a portion of the same ($8,474.90), with interest, which she alleged had been improperly exacted.
Her return showed $36,670 as gain derived from the sale of 380 shares of bank stock sold November 7, 1921, at $210 per share. She acquired this stock November 1, 1921, by gift from her husband. On that day its fair market value was $210 per share; in 1918 it cost her husband $113.50 per share.
The challenged assessment was made under section 202(a)(2), Revenue Act, November 23, 1921, effective (section 263) January 1, 1921. Chapter 136, 42 Stat. 227, 229.
* * *'
The Court of Claims decided against the petitioner; and the cause is here upon certiorari. She maintains— First, that section 202(a)(2) should not be construed as applicable to transactions fully completed before enactment of the statute. Second, that if construed to apply where both gift and sale were consummated before such enactment, the section is arbitrary and capricious, and, therefore invalid under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The support the first point Shwab v. Doyle, 258 U. S. 529, 42 S. Ct. 391, 66 L. Ed. 747, 26 A. L. R. 1454, is cited; for the second Nichols v. Coolidge, 274 U. S. 531, 47 S. Ct. 710, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 52 A. L. R. 1081; Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 48 S. Ct. 105, 72 L. Ed. 206; Untermyer v. Anderson, 276 U. S. 440, 48 S. Ct. 353, 72 L. Ed. 645, are relied upon.
We think the purpose of Congress to apply the provisions of section 202(a)(2) to the transaction here involved is clear. Shwab v. Doyle grew out of the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 758). There, after considering the relevant circumstances, we declared there was no intention to give retroactive effect to the enactment. Here, the contrary design is not doubtful.
The power of Congress to tax as part of a donee's income the difference between what the gift cost the donor and the price received therefor when sold by the donee was affirmed in Taft v. Bowers, 278 U. S. 470, 49 S. Ct. 199, 73 L. Ed. 460, and is not now denied.
That the questioned provision cannot be declared in conflict with the Federal Constitution merely because it requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coolidge v. Long 1930
...62 L. Ed. 1149; Taft v. Bowers, 278 U. S. 470, 483, 484, 49 S. Ct. 199, 73 L. Ed. 460, 64 A. L. R. 362; Cooper v. United States, 280 U. S. 409, 411, 50 S. Ct. 164, 74 L. Ed. 516. The contention that taxation of a property right or an incident of ownership previously created by a deed or con......
-
Comptroller of the Treasury v. Glenn L. Martin Co.
...think that the 'recent transactions' to which this Court has declared a tax law may be retroactively applied. Cooper v. United States, 280 U.S. 409, 411, 50 S.Ct. 164, 74 L.Ed. 516, must be taken to include the receipt of income during the year of the legislative session preceding that of i......
-
Diamond Match Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 7.
...is not a denial of due process of law, if otherwise valid. Schwab v. Richardson, 263 U.S. 88, 44 S.Ct. 60, 68 L.Ed. 183; Cooper v. U. S., 280 U.S. 409, 50 S.Ct. 164, 74 L.Ed. 516, supra. The added tax in the case at bar is double the amount of the usual levy. The sufficient refutation of th......
-
Union Packing Co. v. Rogan
...v. Union Pacific Railway Co., supra; Lynch v. Hornby (1918) 247 U.S. 339, 38 S.Ct. 543, 62 L.Ed. 1149; Cooper v. United States (1930) 280 U.S. 409, 50 S.Ct. 164, 74 L.Ed. 516; Milliken v. United States (1931) 283 U.S. 15, 51 S. Ct. 324, 75 L.Ed. 809; United States v. Hudson (1937) 57 S.Ct. ......
-
In the Supreme Court of the United States.
...U. S. 134 (1938); United States v. Hudson, 299 U. S. 498 (1937); Milliken v. United States, 283 U. S. 15 (1931); Cooper v. United States, 280 U. S. 409 (1930). Here, Johnson Controls sought refunds of taxes collected pursuant to an invalid state revenue policy. In doing so, it did not explo......