Miller v. Gearin
| Decision Date | 05 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3281. |
| Citation | 258 F. 225 |
| Parties | MILLER, Internal Revenue Collector, v. GEARIN. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bert E Haney, U.S. Atty., and John J. Beckman, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error.
Hugh C Gearin, Dolph, Mallory, Simon & Gearin, and Hall S. Lusk, all of Portland, Or., for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The question here is whether the building which was placed upon the property of the defendant in error in the year 1907 under the lease was income received in the year 1916 by reason of the fact that in that year the lease was forfeited and the defendant in error resumed possession. Section 2(a) of the Income Tax Law of 1916 (Act Sept. 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat 757 (Comp. St. Sec. 6336b)) provides that--
'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, businesses, 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 business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.'
The lessor acquired nothing in 1916 save the possession of that which for many years had been her own. The possession so acquired was not income. It was not a gain, but was a loss. Assuming that the building was income derived from the use of the property, we think it clear that the time when it was 'derived' was the time when the completed building was added to the real estate and enhanced its value. At that time it represented a prepayment to the lessor of a portion of the rental, distributable over a period of 23 years. The lease provided that the ownership of all buildings or improvements put upon the premises was to vest in the lessor immediately upon the construction of the same, subject to the provisions of the lease. The decision in Edwards v Keith, 231 F. 111, 145 C.C.A. 298, L.R.A. 1918A, 498, is not contrary to this view. In that case the court held that the commissions of an insurance broker, earned before the Income Tax Law was passed, but received thereafter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Central Public Market v. United States
...is treated as income in the year in which received. O'Day Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 B.T.A. 1230; Miller v. Gearin (C.C.A.) 258 F. 225; Cryan v. Wardell (D.C.) 263 F. The United States Supreme Court has stated: "The net profits earned by the property in 1916 were......
-
Hilgenberg v. United States
...and the Board of Tax Appeals have been primarily influenced by two earlier cases, namely, Cryan v. Wardell, 263 F. 248, 249, and Miller v. Gearin, 258 F. 225, the former a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California (never appealed), and the latter an opinion of t......
-
ME Blatt Co. v. United States, 43592.
...subject to the lease. These views on the question presented are supported by the weight of authority upon the subject. Miller v. Gearin, 9 Cir., 258 F. 225; United States v. Boston & Providence R. R. Corporation, 1 Cir., 37 F.2d 670; Crane v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 68 F.2d 640; Slack and Mer......
-
Helvering v. Bruun
...in two succeeding editions of the Treasury Regulations.3 In 1919 the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Miller v. Gearin, 258 F. 225, that the regulation was invalid as the gain, if taxable at all, must be taxed as of the year when the improvements were The regulations w......