Dick v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1164.
Decision Date | 25 March 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 1164.,1164. |
Citation | 76 F.2d 265 |
Parties | DICK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Arthur G. Croninger, of Miami, Okl., for petitioner.
John Paul Jackson, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before LEWIS, McDERMOTT, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, a full-blood Quapaw Indian, inherited land in 1900. The land was inalienable because of restrictions imposed by statute and in the patent, and exempt from taxation, until September 26, 1921. United States v. Noble, 237 U. S. 74, 35 S. Ct. 532, 59 L. Ed. 844. Appellant sold the land in May, 1931, for $50,000. Its March 1, 1913 value was $5,000. Ore was discovered in 1915, and on September 26, 1921, when the restrictions expired, the land was worth $48,780.53. The Commissioner ruled that the taxable profit on the 1931 sale was the difference between the selling price and the March 1, 1913 value. Appellant contended that the profit was the difference between the selling price and the September 26, 1921 value. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the Commissioner, and we are asked to reverse.
This stipulation eliminates all questions but one: May the profit realized and taxable in 1931 include increment in value arising while the land was restricted and its income not taxed?
Taxes are levied on profits realized and not those accrued. There may be a large increment to the value of real estate owned, but no tax is laid until the property is sold and the profit realized. Appellant argues that since the profit would not have been taxable if the sale had been made before 1921, such profit, realized in 1931, is not then taxable; that if the rule were otherwise, and a sale made on September 27, 1921, the tax would reach an increment all of which occurred during a period when a realized profit was not taxed. There is no doubt that the tax laid does impose a tax on a profit, realized in 1931, which includes an increment in value which arose during the period when the land was restricted and its income untaxed. But does it follow that such tax is not authorized by statute?
The question is one of congressional intent, and not of constitutional power. Congress may levy a tax upon the income of Indians if it chooses. Choteau v. Burnet, Commissioner, 283 U. S. 691, 51 S. Ct. 598, 75 L. Ed. 1353; Pitman v. Commissioner (C. C. A. 10) 64 F.(2d) 740; Superintendent Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner (C. C. A. 10) 75 F.(2d) 183. It has the power to tax the income from restricted lands, although it has not exercised it as to income realized while the land was restricted. The question is, has Congress exercised that power as to profits accruing while the land was restricted but realized after the restrictions were removed?
We are asked to add another clause or subsection or proviso to the effect that "in case of property of restricted Indians, the basis shall be the fair market of such property as of the date the restrictions were removed." We pass by the question of whether a court would ever be warranted in performing such a major operation on a statute, because the Supreme Court of the United States has recently held that appellant's reason for such an operation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olvey v. Collector of Revenue, 43531
...v. Alliance Insurance Company of Philadelphia, 286 U.S. 244, 52 S.Ct. 538, 76 L.Ed. 1083 (and the cases cited therein); Dick v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 265; Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 41 S.Ct. 386, 65 L.Ed. 751, 15 A.L.R. 1305; Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coa......
-
State v. Stickney
...of Int. Rev., 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 447, affirming 31 B.T.A. 117, certiorari denied, 296 U.S. 620, 56 S.Ct. 142, 80 L.Ed. 440; Dick v. Com'r of Int. Rev., 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 265. The commissioner of taxation has promulgated regulations construing the 1937 amendment as affording to a taxpayer the sa......
-
Shepard v. United States, 57-C-51.
...1, 1913 (see sec. 113(a) (14) of 1939 Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 113(a) (14)). The defendant relies heavily upon the case of Dick v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 1935, 76 F.2d 265, certiorari denied 296 U.S. 588, 56 S.Ct. 99, 80 L.Ed. 415. The question here is not whether a simple restriction upon alien......