United States v. Kirby Lumber Co
| Decision Date | 02 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
| Citation | 52 S.Ct. 4,284 U.S. 1,76 L.Ed. 131 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KIRBY LUMBER CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Robert Ash, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
In July, 1923, the plaintiff, the Kirby Lumber Company, issued its own bonds for $12,126,800 for which it received their par value. Later in the same year it purchased in the open market some of the same bonds at less than par, the difference of price being $137,521.30. The question is whether this difference is a taxable gain or income of the plaintiff for the year 1923. By the Rev- enue Act of (November 23) 1921, c. 136, § 213(a), 42 Stat. 238, gross income includes 'gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever,' and by the Treasury Regulations authorized by § 1303 (26 USCA § 1245), that have been in force through repeated re-enactments, 'If the corporation purchases and retires any of such bonds at a price less than the issuing price or face value, the excess of the issuing price or face value over the purchase price is gain or income for the taxable year.' Article 545(1)(c) of Regulations 62, under Revenue Act of 1921. See Article 544(1)(c) of Regulations 45, under Revenue Act of 1918; Article 545(1)(c) of Regulations 65, under Revenue Act of 1924; Article 545(1)(c) of Regulations 69, under Revenue Act of 1926; Article 68(1) (c) of Regulations 74, under Revenue Act of 1928. We see no reason why the Regulations should not be accepted as a correct statement of the law.
In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U. S. 170, 46 S. Ct. 449, 70 L. Ed. 886, the defendant in error owned the stock of another company that had borrowed money repayable in marks or their equivalent for an enterprise that failed. At the time of payment the marks had fallen in value, which so far as it went was a gain for the defendant in error, and it was contended by the plaintiff in error that the gain was taxable income. But the transaction as a whole was a loss, and the contention was denied. Here there was no shrinkage of assets and the taxpayer made a clear gain. As a result of its dealings it made available $137,521.30 assets previously offset by the obligation of bonds now extinct. We see nothing to be gained by the discussion of judicial definitions. The defendant in error has realized within the year an accession to income, if we take words...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc.
...Small Capital," 21 Ind.L.Rev. 469 (1988). 79 See PDRA v. HBK California Mortgage Fund, Adv. # 93-5261. 80 United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 4, 76 L.Ed. 131 (1931) was released on November 2, 1931, the same day as Moore v. Bay. Justice Holmes subsequently authored the S......
-
Penn Mut. Indem. Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...in our system of a self-assessed Federal income tax. It is a test which has been applied frequently. For example, in United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), Mr. Justice Holmes concluded that the taxpayer there involved ‘has realized within the year an accession to income, if w......
-
Putoma Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...cancellation of indebtedness income will be realized upon 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......
-
Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota v. State Bd. of Equalization
...federal definition of gross income is quite expansive. Treating income in its "plain popular meaning" (United States v. Kirby Lumber Co. (1931) 284 U.S. 1, 3, 52 S.Ct. 4, 4, 76 L.Ed. 131), the United States Supreme Court "has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recogni......
-
Bankruptcy - Robert B. Chapman
...Sec. 1366 (1994). 5. Id. Sec. 1366(d)(1). 6. Id. Sec. 1366(d)(2). 7. Id. Sec. 1367(a)(1). 8. E.g., United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931). 9. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 108(a)(1). 10. Id. Sec. 108(b)(2). The operation of Sec. 108 is quite different in partnerships than in S corporations. ......
-
Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007
...following items: . . . (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness . . . .” (emphasis added)). See also United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 3 (1931); Comm’r v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430 (1955) (noting that this language first appeared in the Revenue Act of 1913). 18 Gl......
-
Re-Examining First Day Trading Orders and Tax Status in Bankruptcy After Rodriguez.
...offsets the prior 10 years of $10 annual deductions. (156) Tufts, 461 U.S. at 317 (157) Id. (158) United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931). The principle was subsequently codified under I.R.C. [section] (159) Tufts, 461 U.S. at 312-13 ("Moreover, this approach avoids the absurdi......
-
Information Letter Notice 2013-0036 and Why California's Anti-deficiency Statues Convert Recourse Debt to Nonrecourse Debt
...property of the borrower may be subject to or sold pursuant to a lien in order to pay the obligation."27. U.S. v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931); Gershkowitz v. Comm'r, 88 T.C. 984 (1987).28. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931).29. Id. at 3.30. See Briarpark, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 3218 (1997......