Towne v. Eisner
| Towne v. Eisner | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 12, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918 | |
| Full case name | Towne v. Eisner, Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Third District of the State of New York |
| Citations | 245 U.S. 418 (more) 38 S. Ct. 158; 62 L. Ed. 372; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2143; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 14; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2959 |
| Holding | |
| A stock dividend based on accumulated profits is not "income." | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Holmes, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke |
| Concurrence | McKenna |
Overruled by | |
| Eisner v. Macomber | |
Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "a stock dividend based on accumulated profits was not 'income' within the true intent of the statute."[1] Congress passed a new law in reaction to Towne v. Eisner and so the case was soon overturned by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber.
It includes the quotable passage: "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.[2]
References
- ^ Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918).
This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.
- ^ Towne v Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 425 (1918), quoted in Roberts, Harold S. (1986) [1966] Roberts' Dictionary of Industrial Relations 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.; Bureau of National Affairs), p. vii. ISBN 0-87179-488-8.
External links
- Text of Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress