North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet
| Citation | 286 U.S. 417,76 L.Ed. 1197,52 S.Ct. 613 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 575,575 |
| Parties | NORTH AMERICAN OIL CONSOLIDATED v. BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Herbert W. Clark, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 418 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 419 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether the sum of $171,979.22, received by the North American Oil Consolidated in 1917, was taxable to it as income of that year.
The money was paid to the company under the following circumstances: Among many properties operated by it in 1916 was a section of oil land, the legal title to which stood in the name of the United States. Prior to that year, the government, claiming also the beneficial ownership, had instituted a suit to oust the company from possession; and on February 2, 1916, it secured the appointment of a receiver to operate the property, or supervise its operations, and to hold the net income thereof. The money paid to the company in 1917 represented the net profits which had been earned from that property in 1916 during the receivership. The money was paid to the receiver as earned. After entry by the District Court in 1917 of the final decree dismissing the bill, the money was paid, in that year, by the receiver to the company. United States v. North American Oil Consolidated, 242 F. 723. The government took an appeal (without supersedeas) to the Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1920, that court affirmed the decree. 264 F. 336. In 1922, a further appeal to this Court was dismissed by stipulation. 258 U. S. 633, 42 S. Ct. 315, 66 L. Ed. 802.
The income earned from the property in 1916 had been entered on the books of the company as its income. It had not been included in its original return of income for 1916; but it was included in an amended return for that year which was filed in 1918. Upon auditing the company's income and profits tax returns for 1917, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency based on other items. The company appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. There, in 1927, the Commissioner prayed that the deficiency already claimed should be increased so as to include a tax on the amount paid by the receiver to the company in 1917. The Board held that the profits were taxable to the receiver as income of 1916; and hence made no finding whether the company's accounts were kept on the cash receipts and disbursements basis or on the accrual basis. 12 B. T. A. 68. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the profits were taxable to the company as income of 1917, regardless of whether the company's returns were made on the cash or on the accrual basis. 50 F.(2d) 752. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 284 U. S. 614, 52 S. Ct. 208, 76 L. Ed. —.
It is conceded that the net profits earned by the property during the receivership constituted income. The company contends that they should have been reported by the receiver for taxation in 1916; that, if not returnable by him, they should have been returned by the company for 1916, because they constitute income of the company accrued in that year; and that, if not taxable as income of the company for 1916, they were taxable to it as income for 1922, since the litigation was not finally terminated in its favor until 1922.
First. The income earned in 1916 and impounded by the receiver in that year was not taxable to him, because he was the receiver of only a part of the properties operated by the company. Under section 13(c) of the Revenue Act of 1916,1 receivers who 'are operating the property or business of corporations' were obliged to make returns 'of net income as and for such corporations,' and 'any income tax due' was to be 'assessed and collected in the same manner as if assessed directly against the organizations of whose businesses or properties they have custody and control.' The phraseology of this section was adopted without change in the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1057, 1081, c. 18, § 239. The regulations of the Treasury Department have consistently construed these statutes as applying only to receivers in charge of the entire property or business of a corporation; and in all other cases have required the corporations themselves to report their income. Treas. Regs. 33, arts. 26, 209; Treas. Regs. 45, arts. 424, 622. That construction is clearly correct. The language of the section contemplates a substitution of the receiver for the corporation; and there can be such substitution only when the receiver is in complete control of the properties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Engle Farmar v. United States
...royalties in their income in the year of receipt. No one questions that taxpayers must do that. See North American Oil Consul. v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 52 S.Ct. 613, 76 L.Ed. 1197 (1932). Nor does this case concern the appropriate tax period in which the percentage depletion deduction shoul......
-
Church of Scientology of California v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...somehow changes this tax treatment. Petitioner is clearly wrong on the law. At least since the seminal case of North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 424 (1932), the receipt of money under a claim of right is treated as taxable income even though the recipient may be under......
-
United States v. Rexach
...Most analogous are its rulings under the "claim of right" doctrine, launched the year after Sanford in North American Oil v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 52 S.Ct. 613, 76 L.Ed. 1197 (1932). There the Court established the rule that "If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and withou......
-
CIR v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc.
...See also United States v. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co., 297 U.S. 88, 56 S.Ct. 353, 80 L.Ed. 500; North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 52 S. Ct. 613, 76 L.Ed. 1197; Lynch's Estate v. C. I. R., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 747, 162 A.L. R. 313, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 780, 66 ......
-
Before It's Too Late: Reconsidering The IRS Relief For Madoff Losses
...received.'' 24See United States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S. 678, 683 (1969). 25See North American Oil Consolidated v. Barne, 286 U.S. 417, 424 (1932). See also Healy v. Commissioner, 345 U.S. 278, 284 (1952); GCM 16730 26See Hillsboro Nat'l Bk. v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 370, 383 (1983) (not......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Servance v. Comm'r | Tier 1 Railroad Retirement Benefits, Claim-of-Right Doctrine, Rescission Doctrine
...even if he might later be obligated to return it. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961); N. Am. Oil. Consol. v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 424 Rescission Doctrine. The rescission doctrine is an exception to the claim-of-right doctrine. Under the rescission doctrine, even if a taxpayer......
-
EXECUTIVE PAY CLAWBACKS AND THEIR TAXATION.
...net employee tax burden of the clawback. (107.) United States v. Lewis, 340 U.S. 590, 591 (1951) (citing N. Am. Oil Consol. V. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 (1932)). The facts of Lewis mirror the typical clawback scenario. Lewis received a $22,000 bonus in 1944 and paid tax on that amount. In 1946, ......
-
Erasing the Past Tax Rescission and the Ability to Undo Completed Transactions for Federal Tax Purposes
...time limits on the ability to rescind an otherwise completed transaction, which will be discussed infra. [2] N. Am. Oil Consol. v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 424 (1932). [3] Rev. Rul. 80-58, 1980-1 C.B. 181. [4] Id. [5] TAM 9408004. Note that the Internal Revenue Service has stated that there ar......
-
Sales price adjustments and the claim-of-right doctrine.
...report and pay tax on the income, even if he or she may be required to return the income in a later year (North American Oil Consol. Co., 286 US 417 (1932)). Moreover, a taxpayer who repays the income in a subsequent year is not entitled to a refund for the year in which he or she received ......
-
Customer disputes and accrual of income.
...is substantially in controversy, the taxpayer may not accrue the income until the controversy is resolved (North American Oil Consolidated, 286 US 417 In Situation 1, W's 2002 invoice to X is for an improper amount, resulting from a clerical mistake. As such, W may not accrue $16,000 of gro......