Arrowsmith v. Commissioner
1952 U.S. LEXIS 2768, 73 S. Ct. 71, 344 U.S. 6 (1952)
Rule of Law:
When a payment made in a later tax year is directly related to and stems from a transaction treated as a capital gain in a prior tax year, the later payment must be treated as a capital loss for tax purposes, notwithstanding the general principle of annual tax accounting.
Facts:
- In 1937, two taxpayers, Frederick R. Bauer and the executor of Davenport Pogue’s estate, decided to liquidate and divide the proceeds of a corporation in which they had equal stock ownership.
- From 1937 to 1940, partial and final distributions were made to the taxpayers as part of the corporate liquidation.
- Petitioners reported the profits obtained from these distributions as capital gains, resulting in lower income tax liability.
- In 1944, a judgment was rendered against the old corporation and against Frederick R. Bauer individually.
- The two taxpayers, as transferees of the corporation's assets, were required to and did pay the judgment on behalf of the corporation.
- Frederick R. Bauer was also held liable jointly with the corporation on findings that he had secretly profited due to a breach of his fiduciary relationship to the judgment creditor.
- Bauer's payment of only half the judgment indicated that both he and the other transferee (Pogue's estate) were paying in their capacities as transferees of corporate assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners reported the 1944 payment to satisfy the judgment as an ordinary business loss deduction on their income tax returns.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disagreed, viewing the 1944 payment as a capital loss, consistent with the original capital gains treatment of the liquidation distributions.
- The Tax Court sided with the taxpayers, classifying the 1944 payment as an ordinary business loss.
- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Tax Court's decision, holding that the loss should be treated as a capital loss.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari due to a conflict between the Second Circuit's holding and the Third Circuit's holding in Commissioner v. Switlik on the same issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a payment made by former shareholders, as transferees of a liquidated corporation's assets, to satisfy a corporate liability several years after receiving liquidating distributions, constitute an ordinary business loss or a capital loss for federal income tax purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, a payment made by former shareholders, as transferees years after a corporate liquidation, to satisfy a corporate liability, constitutes a capital loss for tax purposes because the original liquidation proceeds were treated as capital gains. The Court reasoned that I.R.C. § 23(g) treats losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets as 'capital losses,' and I.R.C. § 115(c) requires liquidation distributions to be treated as exchanges. The taxpayers’ liability as transferees was not based on any ordinary business transaction separate from the liquidation proceedings. The principle of annual tax accounting is not breached by considering all the events of the 1937-1944 liquidation transaction to properly classify the 1944 loss, as this is not an attempt to reopen prior tax returns but to determine the character of the loss. The argument regarding Bauer’s individual liability was rejected because his payment of only half the judgment indicated he was paying in his capacity as a transferee, consistent with the other transferee.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, these losses should be treated as ordinary, not capital, losses. Mr. Justice Douglas argued that there were no capital transactions in the year in which the losses were suffered. He contended that the transactions occurred and were accounted for in earlier years, in accordance with the established principle that each taxable year is a separate unit for tax accounting purposes. He stated that this principle should be observed consistently by both taxpayers and the Government, and that treating this year’s losses as if they diminished last year’s gains improperly impeaches that principle.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
No, the judgment liability fastened by operation of law on the transferee should be regarded as an ordinary loss for the year of adjudication. Mr. Justice Jackson, joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, noted that this problem arises solely because the judgment was rendered in a taxable year subsequent to the liquidation. If the liability had been known prior to or during liquidation, it would have reduced the liquidating dividends and capital gains taxes. Since reopening prior year returns is foreclosed, the choice lies between treating it as an ordinary or capital loss in the current year. Finding the statute 'indecisive,' Justice Jackson argued that great deference is due to the twice-expressed judgment of the Tax Court, which he considered a more competent influence toward a systematic body of tax law.
Analysis:
This case established the 'Arrowsmith doctrine,' a crucial principle in tax law that mandates consistency in the tax treatment of transactions spanning multiple tax years. It clarifies that the annual accounting principle does not preclude courts from examining the origin and character of a loss or gain to determine its proper classification when it relates to a prior transaction. The decision has significant implications for how taxpayers treat later-arising expenses or recoveries tied to past capital events, ensuring that the economic reality of the overall transaction dictates its tax character, rather than the timing of specific payments.
