Clark v. Commissioner
40 B.T.A. 333, 1939 BTA LEXIS 864 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A payment received from an advisor to compensate for a loss caused by the advisor's negligent advice is not taxable income, but rather a non-taxable restoration of capital.
Facts:
- For the 1932 tax year, the petitioner and his wife were eligible to file either a joint or separate federal income tax return.
- Petitioner hired experienced tax counsel who advised him to file a joint tax return.
- The tax counsel made an error on the joint return by improperly deducting capital losses in excess of statutory limits.
- Due to this error, a revenue agent audited the return and petitioner was ultimately assessed and paid an additional $32,820.14 in taxes.
- It was later determined that if the petitioner and his wife had filed separate returns, their combined tax liability would have been $19,941.10 less.
- Acknowledging the error, the tax counsel tendered $19,941.10 to the petitioner to compensate for the loss caused by the bad advice.
- The petitioner accepted this payment in 1934.
Procedural Posture:
- A U.S. revenue agent audited the petitioner's 1932 joint tax return and recommended an additional tax assessment, which was subsequently paid by the petitioner.
- In his final determination of the petitioner's 1934 tax liability, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the respondent) included the $19,941.10 payment from tax counsel as taxable income.
- The respondent asserted a deficiency in the petitioner's 1934 income tax for $10,618.87.
- The petitioner initiated this proceeding in the Board of Tax Appeals (the court of first instance) to redetermine the asserted deficiency.
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 from a tax advisor to compensate a client for a loss sustained due to the advisor's error constitute taxable income to the client?
Opinions:
Majority - Leech
No. A payment received as compensation for a loss that impaired the recipient's capital is not considered taxable income. The court reasoned that the petitioner paid his own tax obligation and sustained a loss due to his counsel's negligence. The $19,941.10 payment was not for taxes, but was compensation for that loss. The court distinguished this from cases where a third party pays a taxpayer's obligations (like rent or salary), which would be income. It analogized the payment to other non-taxable receipts such as damages for personal injury, libel, or harm to goodwill, which are considered recoupments of loss rather than income 'derived from capital, from labor or from both combined.' Since the petitioner had not and could not have taken a tax deduction for the loss in a prior year, the subsequent recovery does not trigger income recognition.
Analysis:
This case establishes a fundamental principle differentiating non-taxable restorations of capital from taxable income. It clarifies that the character of a payment depends on its purpose; a payment designed to make a taxpayer whole after a loss is not a gain or profit. This decision is significant for the tax treatment of damages and settlements, establishing that compensatory payments for losses that do not generate a tax benefit are generally excluded from gross income. It solidifies the idea that the definition of 'income' under the tax code does not extend to all receipts of money, particularly those that merely restore a taxpayer to their financial position before a loss occurred.
