Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Giannini
1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3425, 29 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 952, 129 F.2d 638 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxpayer who has a right to compensation but unqualifiedly and unconditionally refuses to accept it before it is received has not realized taxable income. A mere suggestion that the renounced funds be used for a charitable purpose does not constitute the dominion and control necessary to trigger taxation under the doctrine of constructive receipt.
Facts:
- A.P. Giannini was the President of Bancitaly Corporation.
- Initially, Giannini performed his services without compensation.
- On June 27, 1927, the Bancitaly Board of Directors approved a compensation plan granting Giannini 5% of the corporation's net profits annually, retroactive to January 1, 1927.
- For the first part of 1927 (Jan 1 to July 22), Giannini's 5% share was calculated at $445,704.20 and was credited to his account.
- In 1927, after learning the potential size of his full-year compensation, Giannini informed the Board that he would not accept any further compensation for the year and suggested the corporation do something worthwhile with the money.
- The Board of Tax Appeals found this refusal to be 'definite' and 'absolute'.
- On January 20, 1928, the Bancitaly Board passed a resolution to donate the sum Giannini had refused, approximately $1.5 million, to the University of California to establish a foundation in his honor.
- In February 1928, the corporation made the donation to the University.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a tax deficiency of $137,343.50 in A.P. Giannini's 1928 federal income tax.
- Giannini appealed the Commissioner's determination to the Board of Tax Appeals, which served as the trial court.
- The Board of Tax Appeals held for the taxpayer, Giannini, finding no tax deficiency.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as petitioner, sought review of the Board of Tax Appeals' decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 taxpayer realize taxable income when he unconditionally refuses to accept compensation he is contractually entitled to receive, even if he suggests that his employer donate the funds to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
No. A taxpayer does not realize taxable income by refusing compensation because an unconditional renunciation of a right to property is an abandonment, not a transfer or assignment. The court reasoned that unlike the taxpayers in cases like Lucas v. Earl and Helvering v. Horst, Giannini did not exercise dominion and control over the funds. He did not direct their disposition; he merely made a suggestion after his 'unqualifiedly refuse[al] to accept any further compensation.' The corporation retained control of the money and could have kept it. All arrangements for the donation were made by the corporation, with Giannini only participating as a corporate officer. Therefore, Giannini never beneficially received the income, and it could not be taxed as his.
Concurring - Healy, J.
No. While the circumstances could be interpreted as an exercise of command over the money, the appellate court is bound by the Board of Tax Appeals' factual finding that the taxpayer unconditionally renounced his right to the compensation. Furthermore, even if the renunciation constituted a constructive receipt of income, the renunciation occurred in 1927. Therefore, any resulting tax liability would fall in the 1927 tax year, not the 1928 tax year, which is the only year under review in this case.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between the 'anticipatory assignment of income' doctrine and an 'unconditional renunciation' of income. While a taxpayer cannot escape taxation by directing earned income to a third party (as in Horst), they can avoid taxation by completely and absolutely refusing the income before it is received. The decision clarifies that a mere suggestion for the use of renounced funds does not rise to the level of 'dominion and control' required to trigger constructive receipt. This precedent provides a narrow path for high-income individuals to refuse compensation without tax consequences, provided the refusal is absolute and not a disguised donation.
