Hellmich v. Hellman
Decision Date | 20 February 1928 |
Docket Number | 300,Nos. 299,s. 299 |
Citation | 276 U.S. 233,72 L.Ed. 544,48 S.Ct. 244,56 A.L.R. 379 |
Parties | HELLMICH, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. HELLMAN (two cases) |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. Henry H. Furth, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
The two Hellmans brought these suits against the Collector to recover additional income taxes assessed against them for the year 1919, under Title 2 of the Revenue Act of 1918,1 and paid under protest. They recovered judgments in the District Court, which were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 18 F.(2d) 239 and 244.
The question here is whether the gains realized by stockholders from the amounts distributed in the liquidation of the assets of a dissolved corporation, out of its earnings or profits accumulated since February 28, 1913, were taxable to them as other 'gains or profits,' or whether the amounts so distributed were 'dividends' exempt from the normal tax.
Section 201(a) of the Act (Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 b) defined the term 'dividend' as 'any distribution made by a corporation * * * to its shareholders * * * whether in cash or in other property, * * * out of its earnings or profits accumulated since February 28, 1913. * * *' Section 201(c) provided that:
'Amounts dis- tributed in the liquidation of a corporation shall be treated as payments in exchange for stock or shares, and any gain or profit realized thereby shall be taxed to the distributee as other gains or profits.'
Section 216(a) being Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 h, provided that for the purpose of determining the 'normal tax upon the net income of an individual (section 210 (Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 e)), there should be allowed as a credit the 'amount received as dividends from a corporation which is taxable * * * upon its net income.'
Treasury Regulations 45, which were promulgated under the act, stated on the one hand, in article 1541, that for the purpose of the statute 'dividends' comprise distributions made by a corporation to its stockholders 'in the ordinary course of business, even though extraordinary in amount'; and, on the other hand, in article 1548, that:
2
These Regulations, with a change made in 1921 as to the second sentence of article 1548,3 are still in effect so far as distributions in liquidation under the act are concerned.
Each of the Hellmans owned one-half of the capital stock of a corporation which had a net surplus of $46,466.27, of which at least $31,545.58 consisted of earnings and profits accumulated since February 28, 1913. In 1919, the corporation was dissolved and liquidated and its assets were distributed to the stockholders. In this liquidation each of the Hellmans realized a gain of $15,004.55 in the distribution made out of the earnings and profits accumulated since February 28, 1913. Each in his income tax return claimed that this was a 'dividend' which under section 216(a) being Comp. St. § 6336 1/8 h was to be credited on his net income for the purpose of the normal tax. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ruling these were gains subject to the normal tax, disallowed the claims and made the additional assessments here involved.
The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case is in direct conflict with that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Langstaff v. Lucas (C. C. A.) 13 F.(2d) 1022.
The controlling question is whether the amounts distributed to the stockholders out of the earnings and profits accumulated by the corporation since February 28, 1913, were to be treated under section 201(a) as 'dividends,' which were exempt from the normal tax; or, under section 201(c) as payments made by the corporation in exchange for its stock, which were taxable 'as other gains or profits.'
It is true that if section 201(a) stood alone its broad definition of the term 'dividend' would apparently include distributions made to stockholders in the liquidation of a corporation-although this term, as generally understood and used, refers to the recurrent return upon stock paid to stockholders by a going corporation in the ordinary course of business, which does not reduce their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Berretta's Estate
... ... construed together with the more specific provisions ... prevailing over the general ones: Hellmich v. Hellman, 276 ... U.S. 233, 48 S.Ct. 244, 72 L.Ed. 544. Applying this rule the ... general provisions of section 3466 (the Federal Insolvency ... ...
-
In re Tax Refund Litigation
...it is clear. United States v. Hemme, 476 U.S. 558, 572, 106 S.Ct. 2071, 2079, 90 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Hellmich v. Hellman, 276 U.S. 233, 238, 48 S.Ct. 244, 246, 72 L.Ed. 544 (1928). Thus, the second stage of the analysis requires an examination of the statute and the legislative history to d......
-
Kleinman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Gerson)
...It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction to give effect to all of the language of the statute. See Hellmich v. Hellman, 276 U.S. 233, 48 S.Ct. 244, 72 L.Ed. 544 (1928); Stanford v. Commissioner, 297 F.2d 298, 308 (9th Cir.1961), affg. 34 T.C. 1150, 1960 WL 1337 (1960); Larkin v. U......
-
Berretta's Estate, In re
...provisions must be construed together with the more specific provisions prevailing over the general ones: Hellmich v. Hellman, 276 U.S. 233, 48 S.Ct. 244, 72 L.Ed. 544. Applying this rule the general provisions of section 3466 (the Federal Insolvency Statute) are limited by specific provisi......