Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.

Taxation

An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies Government revenue Tax revenue Non-tax revenue Tax law Tax bracket Tax threshold Exemption Credit Deduction Tax shift Tax cut Tax holiday Tax advantage Tax incentive Tax reform Tax harmonization Tax competition Double taxation Representation Unions Medical savings account Tax, tariff and trade
Economics Price effect Excess burden Tax incidence Laffer curve Optimal tax Theory Optimal capital income taxation
Collection Revenue service Revenue stamp Tax assessment Taxable income Tax lien Tax refund Tax shield Tax residence Tax preparation Tax investigation Tax shelter Private tax collection Tax farming
Noncompliance Tax avoidance Tax evasion Tax resistance Tax haven Smuggling Black market Transfer mispricing Unreported employment Tax shelter
Distribution Tax rate Progressive Regressive Proportional
Types Direct Indirect Per unit Ad valorem In rem Capital gains Carbon Consumption Dividend Ecotax Excise Fuel Georgist Gift Gross receipts Income Inheritance (estate) Land value Payroll Pigovian Property Sales Sin Single Stamp Steering Turnover Value-added (VAT) Corporate profit Excess profits Windfall profits Negative (income) Flat Wealth
International Financial transaction tax Currency transaction tax Tobin tax Spahn tax Tax equalization Tax treaty European Union FTT
Trade Custom Duty Tariff Import Export Tariff war Free trade Free trade zone Trade agreement
Religious Church tax Eight per thousand Teind Tithe Fiscus Judaicus Leibzoll Temple tax Tolerance tax Jizya Kharaj Khums Nisab Zakat
By country List of countries by tax rates Tax revenues as %GDP Albania Algeria Argentina Australia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Bhutan Bulgaria Canada China Colombia France Germany Greece Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kazakhstan Lithuania Malta Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Palestinian territories Peru Philippines Poland Russia Singapore South Africa Sweden Switzerland Tanzania United Kingdom United States Uruguay

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 4–6, 1918
Decided May 20, 1918

Full case name

Doyle, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Mitchell Bros. Co.

Citations

247 U.S. 179 (more)

38 S. Ct. 467; 62 L. Ed. 1054; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1968; 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P17; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2979

Prior history

Judgment for plaintiffs, 225 F. 437 (W.D. Mich. 1915); aff'd by 235 F. 686 (6th Cir. 1916); rehearing denied by 239 F. 719 (6th Cir. 1917)

Court membership

Chief Justice Edward D. White

Associate Justices Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke

Case opinions

Majority

Pitney, joined by unanimous

Laws applied

Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, § 38, 36 Stat. 112

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court case defining gross income. The case held that gross income includes the gain on sale of assets, i.e., the proceeds less cost basis. An alternative theory that gross income should be the gross proceeds, and the cost basis should be allowed as a deduction, was rejected by the Court.

The Court also held that the harvesting of timber was not an income recognition event until the timber was sold.

In 1909, Congress enacted a tax on net income of corporations. Much of the language defining gross income in that law has been retained in current tax law. Thus, court decisions interpreting the meaning of that law may have continuing relevance.

Mitchell Bros. was a timber producer organized in 1903. Upon passage of the predecessor to current income tax law, the company became subject to tax on net income. Mitchell Bros. held various timber lands from which it harvested timber. After harvesting, the timber and land would be sold separately. The Court addressed questions of when income from timber was to be included in taxable income and how taxable income from sale of the land was to be calculated.

On the gross income question, the Court stated in paragraph 13, "In order to determine whether there has been gain or loss, and the amount of the gain if any, we must withdraw from the gross proceeds an amount sufficient to restore the capital value that existed at the commencement of the period under consideration."

On the timing question, the Court found, in paragraph 17, that the mere harvesting of timber did not give rise to income. The Court held that income from the timber should be recognized when the timber was sold.

Sources

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, January 30, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.