Commissioner v. LoBue
1956 U.S. LEXIS 1793, 351 U.S. 243, 100 L. Ed. 2d 1142 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The bargain element of employee stock options granted for services, regardless of the employer's intent to confer a proprietary interest, constitutes taxable compensation under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, with the gain measured at the time the options are exercised.
Facts:
- From 1941 to 1947, LoBue was the manager of the New York Sales Division of Michigan Chemical Corporation.
- In 1944, Michigan Chemical Corporation adopted a stock option plan allowing key employees to purchase common stock at $5 per share over a three-year period.
- LoBue was tentatively chosen to receive nontransferable stock options, contingent on his continued employment, with the amount based on individual and organizational results.
- Approximately six months later, LoBue was definitively awarded an option to buy 150 shares in recognition of his contributions.
- Due to LoBue's satisfactory work, the company eventually delivered three stock options to him, covering a total of 340 shares.
- LoBue exercised all these options in 1946 and 1947, paying $1,700 for stock that had a market value of $9,930 when delivered.
- The company deducted the $8,230 difference as an expense on its tax returns, but LoBue did not report any part of it as income.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue levied a deficiency assessment against LoBue for the years 1946 and 1947, viewing the gain from the stock options as compensation for personal services under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
- LoBue petitioned the Tax Court to redetermine the deficiency, arguing that the options were intended to provide him with a proprietary interest, not additional compensation.
- The Tax Court held for LoBue, finding that the options were granted to give him 'a proprietary interest in the corporation, and not as compensation for services'.
- The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Tax Court's decision, stating that the finding was a factual issue within the Tax Court's responsibility and not clearly erroneous.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to consider whether the Tax Court and Court of Appeals had given § 22(a) too narrow an interpretation.
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 bargain purchase of stock by an employee from an employer, through a stock option plan intended to provide a proprietary interest, constitute taxable compensation under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and if so, when is the gain realized?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, a bargain purchase of stock by an employee from an employer constitutes taxable compensation, and the gain is realized when the options are exercised. The Court held that Congress intended to “tax all gains except those specifically exempted” in Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which broadly defines gross income to include “compensation for personal service... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid.” The Court found no indication of detached and disinterested generosity to qualify the transfer as a gift. The employer's intent to confer a “proprietary interest” does not narrow the broad coverage of Section 22(a), because transfers from an employer to an employee to secure better services are plainly compensation, regardless of whether they are paid in stock or money. Relying on Commissioner v. Smith, the Court reiterated that Section 22(a) is broad enough to include any economic or financial benefit conferred on an employee as compensation. Therefore, LoBue realized a substantial economic and financial benefit from his employer for better work, which is taxable compensation. As for the timing of the gain, the Court held that for nontransferable options contingent upon continued employment, the taxable gain should be measured at the time the options were exercised, consistent with uniform Treasury practice since 1923 and congressional acts like the 1950 Act for “restricted stock option plans.”
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Clark
Yes, a bargain purchase of stock by an employee from an employer constitutes taxable compensation. We join in the judgment of the Court and in its opinion on the main issue regarding the taxability of the stock options. However, we believe the question of when LoBue acquired the interest on which he is taxed was not an issue raised or decided by either the Tax Court or the Court of Appeals. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for this Court to depart from the general rule of abstaining from passing on such an issue when it is raised here for the first time.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, a bargain purchase of stock by an employee from an employer constitutes taxable compensation, but the taxable event was the grant of each option, not its exercise. I agree that the gain is taxable, but dissent on the timing. When LoBue received an unconditional option to buy stock at less than the market price, he received an asset of substantial and immediately realizable value equal to the difference between the option price and market price. This was the moment the corporation conferred a benefit upon him. Exercising the option merely converted his asset from an option into stock and should not be a consequence for tax purposes. Taxing the option as income when granted, and any subsequent appreciation as capital gain, prevents the division of total gains between ordinary income and capital gain from depending solely upon the employee's arbitrary decision of when to exercise the option. For the first option, which was conditional, the taxable event would be when the condition was satisfied and the right vested, measuring income by the option's value on that date.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the taxation of employee stock options, establishing that the 'bargain element' (the difference between market value and option price) is taxable as ordinary income when the option is exercised. The Court rejected the 'proprietary interest' defense, affirming that Section 22(a) focuses on the economic benefit received by the employee for services, regardless of the employer's subjective intent. This ruling had a profound impact on corporate compensation strategies and employee benefit plans, forcing companies to reconsider the tax implications of stock-based incentives and prompting future legislative responses like the 1950 Act's 'restricted stock option plans' and later incentive stock options, which offered more favorable tax treatment. It underscored the broad scope of 'gross income' in U.S. tax law.
