Commissioner v. Tower
66 S. Ct. 532, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3131, 327 U.S. 280 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a family partnership to be recognized as valid for federal income tax purposes, the parties must genuinely intend to conduct business as partners, which is determined not merely by the formal agreement but by substantive factors such as whether a partner contributes capital originating with them or performs vital services for the business.
Facts:
- Respondent, Tower, managed and controlled R. J. Tower Iron Works for many years.
- From 1933 to 1937, the business was a corporation in which Tower owned 445 of 500 shares, while his wife owned five shares but performed no services.
- In 1937, on the advice of his attorney to reduce taxes, Tower decided to dissolve the corporation and form a partnership with his wife.
- On August 25, 1937, Tower transferred 190 shares of the corporation's stock to his wife on the condition that she contribute the assets represented by those shares into the new partnership.
- Three days later, the corporation was liquidated and a limited partnership was formed, with the wife's capital contribution consisting of the assets from the stock Tower had just given her.
- Under the partnership agreement, Tower retained full control and management of the business, while his wife, as a limited partner, was prohibited from participating in its conduct.
- The wife performed no services for the business, and the income attributed to her was used for family expenses and items a husband would typically provide for his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a deficiency in respondent Tower's income tax for 1940 and 1941.
- Tower petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.
- The Tax Court held that no real partnership existed for tax purposes and sustained the Commissioner's assessment.
- Tower, as appellant, appealed the decision to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's decision in favor of Tower.
- The Commissioner, 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:
Does a family partnership, valid under state law, in which the wife contributes capital gifted to her by her husband immediately before its formation and performs no services or management functions, shift the tax liability for her purported share of the income from the husband to the wife for federal income tax purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
No. A family partnership, even if valid under state law, does not shift income tax liability from the husband to the wife where the husband retains control of the business and its income, and the wife contributes neither capital originating with her nor vital services. The central question for tax purposes is who earned the income, a determination that requires looking at the substance of the transaction rather than its form. Here, the arrangement was a 'mere paper reallocation of income among the family members' designed solely for tax avoidance, as the husband's control over the business and the economic relationship of the family to the income remained unchanged. Therefore, the income was earned by the husband and is taxable to him under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Concurring - Justice Rutledge
No. While agreeing with the outcome, this opinion argues for a stricter rule. As a matter of federal tax law, the formation of a limited partnership between a husband and wife, immediately following the husband's conditional gift of business assets to her for the purpose of reinvestment, is legally insufficient to shift tax liability. The Tax Court should not be free to find otherwise in substantially similar circumstances, as this arrangement should be considered an invalid tax avoidance scheme as a matter of law, not just a question of fact.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'substance over form' doctrine in federal tax law, particularly for family partnerships. It establishes that income is taxed to the person who earns it, and intra-family arrangements created solely to reduce taxes will be subject to special scrutiny. The Court's decision empowers the IRS to look beyond formal agreements and state law validity to assess the economic reality of a situation. The precedent requires that for a partner's share of income to be taxed to them, they must have made a legitimate contribution through either 'original capital' or 'vital services,' a standard that would heavily influence tax litigation involving family businesses for decades.
