Helvering v. American Chicle Co
| Decision Date | 05 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 349,349 |
| Citation | 78 L.Ed. 891,54 S.Ct. 460,291 U.S. 426 |
| Parties | HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue, v. AMERICAN CHICLE CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General andMr. Erwin N. Griswold, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 427-428 intentionally omitted] Mr. Wm. C. Breed, of New York City, for respondent.
Assessments by petitioner which treated as realized income the difference between the face value of certain bonds assumed by respondent in 1914 and the amount at which it purchased them in 1922, 1924 and 1925, were disapproved by the Board of Tax Appeals. The court below affirmed this action, and the matter is here by certiorari. The meager stipulated facts present only a narrow point; and to that our decision must be limited.
Respondent is a New Jersey corporation the nature of whose business is undisclosed. Its books are kept on the accrual basis.
The Sen Sen Chiclet Company, incorporated under the laws of Maine, also carried on an undiclosed business. In 1909 it issued a series of 20 year bonds—whether secured by a lien, or otherwise, does not appear. The indenture under which they issued required that $50,000 be supplied each year which the trustee should use for purchasing outstanding bonds.
In 1914 respondent bought all assets of the Sen Sen Company. In part payment it assumed all outstanding liabilities of the seller—among them $2,425,000 of the 1909 bonds. There is nothing in the record to show the nature of these assets, or what became of them, or the outcome of the transaction.
Respondent purchased in 1922 $82,000 of the Sen Sen bonds for $55,650.94—$26,349.06 less than their face. During 1924 it and the trustee under the indenture purchased $59,000 of the same bonds for $47,602.10—$11,397.90 below their par value. Likewise, during 1925 they purchased $201,500 for $186,146.31—$15,353.69 less than their face.
The Commissioner treated these differences—$26,349.06, $11,397.90 and $15,353.69—as income realized by respondent. The Board of Tax Appeals ruled otherwise and said:
In support of the same view, the Circuit Court of Appeals said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putoma Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 7468-73— 7472-73.
...the discharge of this indebtedness for less than full value. United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931); Helvering v. American Chicle Co., 291 U.S. 426 (1934). Sec. 61(a)(12). This rule is also applicable to the acquisition of intangibles, that is, where the debt is incurred for r......
-
James v. United States
...at page 3, 52 S.Ct. at page 4. This doctrine has since been reaffirmed and strengthened by us, see e.g., Helvering v. American Chicle Co., 291 U.S. 426, 54 S.Ct. 460, 78 L.Ed. 891; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 69 S.Ct. 358, 93 L.Ed. 477, and by the lower federa......
-
United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien
... ... Atlantic Airways, Ltd., Air Jamaica Limited, Transportes Areos Portugueses, S.A., North American Airlines, Inc., Singapore Airlines Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ... Una F. BRIEN, Director, ... ...
-
OKC Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...of the reduction or cancellation constitutes income. Sec. 61(a)(12); Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28 (1949); Helvering v. American Chicle Co., 291 U.S. 426 (1934); United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931). Courts have on occasion recognized an exception to the Kirby Lumber......