Gould v. Gould

Decision Date19 November 1917
Docket NumberNo. 41,41
CitationGould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211 (1917)
PartiesGOULD v. GOULD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Martin W. Littleton, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. John L. McNab, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDSdelivered the opinion of the Court.

A decree of the Supreme Court for New York county entered in 1909 forever separated the parties to this proceeding, then and now citizens of the United States, from bed and board; and further ordered that plaintiff in error pay to Katherine C. Gould during her life the sum of $3,000 every month for her support and maintenance.The question presented is whether such monthly payments during the years 1913 and 1914 constituted parts of Mrs. Gould's income within the intendment of the act of Congress approved October 3, 1913(38 Stat. 114, 166, c. 16), and were subject as such to the tax prescribed therein.The court below answered in the negative; and we think it reached the proper conclusion.

Pertinent portions of the act follow:

'Section II, A. Subdivision 1.That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, except as hereinafter provided. * * *

'B.That, subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, business, trade, commerce or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever, including the income from but not the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent. * * *'

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
558 cases
  • Armstrong v. County of San Mateo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 26, 1983
    ...most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.' " (Id. at p. 687, 284 P. 663, quoting Gould v. Gould (1917) 245 U.S. 151, 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211; see also Edison California Stores v. McColgan (1947) 30 Cal.2d 472, 476, 183 P.2d 16; Estate of Potter (1922) 188 Cal......
  • Murray v. Philadelphia
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1950
    ... ... v. Hood et ... al., 57 Pa. 98 [1868]. In cases of [364 Pa. 164] doubt ... the construction should be against the government: Gould ... v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153, 38 S.Ct. 53 [1917]; U.S. v ... Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 188, 44 S.Ct. 69 [1923]; Com. v ... P.R.T. Co., 287 Pa ... ...
  • Fedders Financial Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1984
    ...In Kingsley, supra, 41 N.J. at 528-29, 197 A.2d 673, we quoted approvingly the following language from Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 53, 62 L.Ed. 211, 213 (1917): In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by ......
  • Standard Oil Co. v. Fox
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • March 1, 1934
    ...include highly penal provisions (as does this one) are to be construed in favor of and not against the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 38 S. Ct. 53, 62 L. Ed. 211; Old Colony R. R. v. Commissioner, 284 U. S. 552, 561, 52 S. Ct. 211, 76 L. Ed. 484; Alyea-Nichols Co. v. United States......
  • Get Started for Free
6 books & journal articles
  • Alimony/Separate Maintenance Payments
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Divorce Taxation Content
    • April 30, 2022
    ...were later superseded by Sections 71 and 215 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and subsequent IRC versions. 2 See Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917). 3 Joint Committee on Taxation, “Summary of the Tax Reform Act of 1976,” §502, retrieved at http://www.jct.gov/s-31-76.pdf. 4 T.C.J.A. has......
  • Same-Sex Couples
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Divorce Taxation Content
    • April 30, 2022
    ...enactment of I.R.C. §71, spousal support payments were neither deductible to the payor nor taxable to the payee. See Gould v. Gould (1917) 245 U.S. 151. Although Gould relies on outdated conceptions of income, it may still be good law in situations where a support obligation is imposed by s......
  • Drop shipments, destination sales, and the multi-factor apportionment statute: a critical review of Stryker Corporation v. Director, Division of Taxation.
    • United States
    • Tax Executive Vol. 52 No. 4, July 2000
    • July 1, 2000
    ...Abatement, 18 N.J. Tax 50 (Tax 1998). (17) Franklin Tower One, L.L.C. v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602, 725 A.2d 1104 (1999). (18) Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917); Kingsley v. Hawthorne Fabrics, Inc., 41 N.J. 521, 197 A.2d 673 (1964); Smith v. Director, Division of Taxation, 108 N.J. 19, 527 A.2d ......
  • Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 30-2, July 2002
    • July 1, 2002
    ...refer to section 71, I.R.C. ß 215(b) (2001), which defines alimony as a payment received by a spouse. ß 71(b)(1)(A). [112] Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153-54 [113] Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-396, ß 421, 98 Stat. 494, 793 (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. ß 1041 (2001)).......
  • Get Started for Free