Electric Reduction Co. v. Lewellyn, 3408.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 3408.,3408. |
| Citation | 11 F.2d 493 |
| Parties | ELECTRIC REDUCTION CO. v. LEWELLYN, Collector of Internal Revenue. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
S. Leo Ruslander, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (George K. Warn and Samuel Kaufman, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and W. J. Aiken, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., and A. W. Gregg, Solicitor of Internal Revenue, and Irwin R. Blaisdell, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
On July 2, 1918, plaintiff below, Electric Reduction Company, agreed to purchase from one Jouravleff 150 to 175 tons of tungsten ore. Jouravleff was to ship a car of 30 to 35 tons each month, beginning in August, 1918. The plaintiff was On August 29, 1918, Charles Hardy, who represented Jouravleff, telegraphed the Reduction Company: "Reference contract Jouravleff shipment one car to be made to-day." The Reduction Company, relying upon the truth of the telegram, thereupon sent its trade acceptance for $30,000 to Jouravleff. The car of ore was not shipped that day nor at any other time. However, ore to the value of $2,784.65 was subsequently shipped. Jouravleff negotiated the trade acceptance to an innocent holder for value, and so the plaintiff had to pay it at maturity. The plaintiff brought suit against Jouravleff and Hardy, who had guaranteed the payment, for the amount of his loss, $27,205.35, but they were financially irresponsible. This litigation lasted until 1922, when the plaintiff charged off the amount on its books, and amended its tax return for 1918. The commissioner of internal revenue denied the right to charge off this loss for 1918, and assessed additional taxes, which were paid under protest. A return was demanded, but was refused, and thereupon this suit was brought. The case was tried by agreement before the court without a jury. Judgment was entered against the plaintiff.
The question is whether or not this so-called loss comes within subdivision 4 or 5 of section 234 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1918. The Act provides as follows:
"(5) Debts ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the taxable year." 40 Stat. 1057 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6336 1/8pp).
If the $27,205.35 is a "loss" within the meaning of subdivision (a) (4), it may be deducted from the income of 1918, as it was actually "sustained" in that year. If it was a bad "debt" within the meaning of subdivision (a) (5), it may not be deducted from the income of that year because it was not "ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the taxable year" of 1918.
According to the original return, the company was liable for a tax of $8,183.63. If the $27,205.35 had been allowed as a loss sustained in the year 1918, the tax for that year would have been reduced to $1,132.78.
Congress doubtless had in mind a distinction between a loss and a worthless debt. Every worthless debt is a loss, but not every loss is a worthless debt. Every worthless debt is allowed as a deduction, if it is ascertained to be worthless, and is charged off within the taxable year. So far as allowance as a deduction is concerned, a loss and a worthless debt amount to the same thing, if the latter is charged off in time.
Words do not always mean the same thing. "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances in which it is used." Lamar v. United States, 36 S. Ct. 255, 240 U. S. 60, 60 L. Ed. 526. The word "debt" has no fixed legal meaning as does the word "contract." Alimony is sometimes said to be a debt and sometimes not a debt. The word has several recognized meanings which vary greatly according to the subject-matter and language used in connection with it. Hornbeck v. State, 71 N. E. 916, 33 Ind. App. 609; McNeal v. Waco, 33 S. W. 322, 89 Tex. 83; In re Nowell (D. C.) 99 F. 931. Bouvier says a debt is "a sum of money due by certain and express agreement." Neither does the word "loss" have a hard and fast meaning. "Failure to keep that which one has is a loss." Foehrenbach v. German-American Title & Trust Co., 66 A. 561, 217 Pa. 332, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465, 118 Am. St. Rep. 916. There are many kinds of loss: Money out of pocket; a judgment, changing the status from solvency to insolvency. Schambs v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 259 F. 55, 58, 170 C. C. A. 55, 6 A. L. R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Viles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
..."liability." Gilman v. Commissioner, 8 Cir., 53 F.2d 47; M. A. Burns Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 504; Electric Reduction Co. v. Lewellyn, 3 Cir., 11 F.2d 493. Some support for this view may exist in the opinion in Com. of Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, at 625-62......
-
Behnke v. New Jersey Highway Authority
...fixed legal meaning; it takes shades of meaning from the occasion of its use and color from accompanying words. Electric Reduction Co. v. Lewellyn, 11 F.2d 493 (C.C.A.3 1926); Morrow v. Hayes, 226 Mich. 301, 197 N.W. 554 (S.Ct.1924); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson Shipyards Corpora......
-
A. Giurlani & Bro. v. Com'r of Int. Rev.
...52 S.Ct. 211, 214, 76 L.Ed. 484. 2 Deputy v. DuPont, 308 U.S. 488, 493, 60 S.Ct. 363, 366, 84 L.Ed. 416. 1 Citing: Electric Reduction Co. v. Lewellyn, 3 Cir., 11 F.2d 493, 494, reversed, 275 U.S. 243, 48 S.Ct. 63, 72 L. Ed. 2 Citing: Dresser et al. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 55 F.2d 499. ...
-
Schuylkill Haven Trust Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 32104.
...contemplates only a substantive economic loss, Treasury Regulations on Income Tax (1954 Code), § 1.165-1(b); Electric Reduction Co. v. Lewellyn, 11 F.2d 493, 494 (3rd Cir. 1926), according to the government's theory, a mere "write down" cannot qualify as such regardless of whether it was ma......