Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger
320 U.S. 467 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Legal expenses incurred in the unsuccessful defense of a legitimate business against a government action are deductible as 'ordinary and necessary' business expenses, unless allowing the deduction would frustrate a sharply defined national or state policy.
Facts:
- From 1926 through 1938, S. B. Heininger operated a mail-order business selling false teeth, which was his principal business activity.
- Heininger used circulars and advertisements sent through the mail to promote his products.
- Following hearings, the Postmaster General found that Heininger's advertisements contained misleading statements and claims about his products.
- On February 19, 1938, the Postmaster General issued a fraud order against Heininger.
- The order directed the Chicago Postmaster to stop payment on money orders addressed to Heininger and to return all his mail to the senders stamped 'Fraudulent'.
- This fraud order effectively meant the complete destruction of Heininger's mail-order business.
- In defending his business against this action, Heininger incurred $36,600 in legal fees and expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- S. B. Heininger sought an injunction in a U.S. District Court to stop the enforcement of the Postmaster General's fraud order.
- The District Court granted the injunction, siding with Heininger.
- The Postmaster General appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court, holding the fraud order was supported by evidence.
- Heininger's petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the fraud order case was denied.
- Heininger claimed the legal expenses from this litigation as a deduction on his 1937 and 1938 income tax returns.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deductions.
- Heininger petitioned the Board of Tax Appeals (the trial court for tax cases), which affirmed the Commissioner's decision.
- Heininger, as appellant, appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board of Tax Appeals' decision.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are legal fees and related expenses incurred by a taxpayer in unsuccessfully defending his business against a government fraud order deductible as 'ordinary and necessary' business expenses under the Revenue Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. Legal fees and expenses incurred by a taxpayer in unsuccessfully defending his business against a government fraud order are deductible as 'ordinary and necessary' business expenses. The expenses were 'ordinary' because defending one's business from complete destruction is a normal and expected response for a business owner. They were 'necessary' because they were appropriate and helpful in the defense of the business. The government's argument that the expenses are non-deductible because they arose from wrongdoing is unsound. An expense is only non-deductible on public policy grounds if its allowance would frustrate a 'sharply defined' national or state policy. The policy of the mail fraud statutes is to protect the public, not to impose punitive sanctions on violators through the tax code; criminal punishment is handled by separate statutes. To deny the deduction would be to attach a severe punitive consequence to an administrative finding which Congress did not intend.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'frustration of public policy' doctrine as the standard for denying deductions for business expenses related to allegedly illegal activities. It rejects a simpler rule that would automatically disallow deductions for any expense connected to an action deemed wrongful by the government. The decision requires courts to look at the specific policy of the underlying statute to determine if allowing a tax deduction would undermine its purpose. This precedent significantly narrowed the scope under which the IRS could deny deductions on public policy grounds, protecting the deductibility of legal defense costs even when the taxpayer ultimately loses the case.
Unlock the full brief for Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger