Cowden v. Commissioner
289 F.2d 20 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual promise to make future payments is the equivalent of cash, and thus taxable as income in the year it is received, if the promise is from a solvent obligor, is unconditional and assignable, not subject to set-offs, and is of a kind frequently transferred to lenders or investors.
Facts:
- In April 1951, Frank Cowden, Sr. and his family entered into an oil, gas, and mineral lease with Stanolind Oil and Gas Company.
- The agreement included supplemental contracts for 'bonus' payments totaling $511,192.50, structured to be paid in installments in 1951, 1952, and 1953.
- Stanolind's obligation to make the future payments was explicitly stated as a 'firm and absolute personal obligation' that was not conditioned on oil production.
- Stanolind was willing and able to pay the entire bonus amount in a lump sum in 1951, but the Cowdens refused this arrangement and insisted on the deferred payment structure.
- In November 1951, the Cowdens assigned the 1952 payment rights to the First National Bank of Midland for a nominal discount.
- In November 1952, the Cowdens assigned the 1953 payment rights to the same bank, again for a small discount.
- The bank considered the assigned payment obligations to be 'bankable' and looked solely to Stanolind for payment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the fair market value of Stanolind's contractual obligations was taxable as ordinary income to the Cowdens in 1951.
- The Cowdens petitioned the U.S. Tax Court to challenge the Commissioner's deficiency determination.
- The Tax Court, as the court of first instance, held that the entire face value of the bonus payments was taxable as ordinary income to the Cowdens in 1951.
- The Cowdens, as appellants, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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:
Is a solvent obligor's unconditional and assignable contractual promise to make future payments, which is of a kind frequently transferred to lenders or investors, the 'equivalent of cash' and thus taxable as income in the year the promise is made?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, Circuit Judge
Yes, such a promise is the equivalent of cash and taxable in the year it is received. The court rejected the formalistic test that an obligation must be a negotiable instrument like a note or bond to be considered the equivalent of cash. Instead, the court adopted a test based on economic reality, focusing on whether a promise to pay is readily convertible into cash. The court held that if a promise to pay from a solvent obligor is unconditional, assignable, not subject to set-offs, and of a kind that is frequently transferred to lenders or investors at a minimal discount, it is the equivalent of cash. The court criticized the Tax Court for placing too much emphasis on the payor's willingness to pay upfront and the taxpayer's tax avoidance motive, stating these factors are not determinative. The proper inquiry is the fair market value of the obligation actually received, not the value of a contract the taxpayer could have made. The case was remanded for the Tax Court to apply this new standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the 'equivalent of cash' doctrine in tax law, shifting the focus from the form of an obligation to its economic substance and marketability. By rejecting a strict negotiability requirement, the court made it more difficult for cash-basis taxpayers to defer income recognition by accepting contractual promises that are, for all practical purposes, as good as cash. The ruling established a new, multi-factor test based on market realities, which requires courts to assess whether an obligation is easily convertible to cash. This precedent impacts tax planning for deferred compensation and structured payment agreements, emphasizing that substance over form controls the timing of income recognition.
