Gavit v. Irwin
Decision Date | 22 August 1921 |
Citation | 275 F. 643 |
Parties | GAVIT v. IRWIN, Internal Revenue Collector. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Neile F. Towner, of Albany, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Dennis B. Lucey, U.S. Atty., of Ogdensburg, N.Y., for defendant.
By the will of Anthony N. Brady, deceased, he divided his estate into six equal parts, and devised one-sixth of his estate in trust to his executors, who were thereby made trustees. The trustees were directed to apply so much of the income and profits from such one-sixth as in their discretion they thought necessary for the support and maintenance of decedent's granddaughter, Marcia Ann Gavit, daughter of the plaintiff herein, and to divide the remainder of the income of such one-sixth, not necessary for the support of the granddaughter, into two parts, one of said parts to be paid to the plaintiff during his life, but not longer than the infancy of the daughter Marcia Ann Gavit, and not longer than her natural life should she die before attaining the age of 21 years.
During the tax years of 1913, 1914, and 1915, the plaintiff received certain sums of money under the provisions of the Brady will upon which he has been required to pay, as normal tax, additional tax, and penalties, the sum of $21,602.16. He paid this under protest, and appealed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who decided against him, and the plaintiff has now brought this action to recover such amount of taxes, with interest.
The question before the court, arising upon a demurrer to the complaint, is whether or not the moneys so received by the plaintiff under the aforesaid provisions of the Brady will are taxable as income, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913 (38 Stat. 114). The provisions of this act, so far as applicable, are as follows:
The courts have held that income, within the meaning of the Constitution and the Income Tax Act passed pursuant to the Sixteenth Amendment, must be taken in the common understanding of the term. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 Sup.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570. Income, as laid down by the United States Supreme Court, within the purview of the Constitution, is defined as:
' * * * The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. ' Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, citing Stratton Ind. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185.
In the same case (Eisner v. Macomber) the relation of capital to income is expressed as follows:
'The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by the economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time.'
Since the moneys received by plaintiff were not income from labor, nor from labor and capital combined, nor from the sale or conversion of capital assets, we have only to do with income received from capital. Income, as now considered, is, after the severance, separate and apart from the capital; it is as separate and apart from the capital as the fruit from the tree, the crops from the land after severance, or the waters in the outlet stream after passing out of the reservoir. It is something which has grown out of or issued from capital, leaving the capital unimpaired and intact. Having these considerations in mind, it cannot be said that these moneys received by the plaintiff arose from any capital of his. So far as appears from the pleadings in this case, he had no land, trees, or reservoir to produce crops, fruit, or outlet water-- no capital of any kind whatever.
If the Income Tax Law of 1913, therefore, is intended only to tax the income, which is the fruit of the taxpayer's labor, or the income from the taxpayer's capital, in which he has a present ownership (or at least a vested future interest, meantime receiving the income or the gain from the sale or conversion of the taxpayer's capital assets), then the money received by the plaintiff is not income as to him, because he has not and never will have the slightest ownership, present or future, vested or contingent, in the capital producing this income. If this is income, therefore, it is the income, not of the capital of the plaintiff, but of the capital of a portion of the Brady estate, which capital will never be that of the plaintiff.
There is nothing in the act of 1913 which taxes income which is not the income of the citizen or the individual sought to be taxed. The levy, assessment, and payment is upon the net income of a 'citizen.' Section A, subdivision 1. 'Individuals' are chargeable with the normal and the additional income tax. Section A, subdivision 2. The return required by section A, subdivision 2, is a personal return. An estate is not a 'citizen' nor a 'person.' There is nothing in the act of 1913 which shows any intent to tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Republic Acceptance Corporation v. De Land
-
Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana v. Stone
... ... As an ... example of restricted application, income from estates has ... been held not liable for an "income tax". Gavit ... v. Irwin, D.C., 275 F. 643, 648. Under the Act of Oct ... 3, 1913, 38 St. L. 166, c. 16 ... Nor may ... we risk violence to ... ...
-
Irwin v. Gavit
...166 et seq. The Collector demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled and judgment given for the plaintiff by the District Court (275 F. 643), and the Circuit Court of Appeals (295 F. 84). A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 264 U. S. 579, 44 S. Ct. 453, 68 L. Ed. The ......
-
Bregoff v. Rubien
...in trust cases (Equitable Trust Co. v. Prentice, 250 N.Y. 1, 11, 164 N.E. 723, 725, 63 A.L.R. 263); as defined in tax statutes (Gavit v. Irwin, D.C., 275 F. 643); or as broadly used in section 793 of the Civil Practice Act, does not make the term ambiguous in the agreement before the Court.......