Gould v. Gould
245 U.S. 151, 38 S. Ct. 53, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1761 (1917)
Rule of Law:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, their provisions are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, and in case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the Government and in favor of the citizen. Under this principle, alimony payments received by a divorced wife under a court decree were not considered taxable income under the Income Tax Act of October 3, 1913.
Facts:
- The Supreme Court for New York County issued a decree in 1909, forever separating the parties, Mr. Gould and Katherine C. Gould, from bed and board.
- The New York court's decree ordered Mr. Gould to pay Katherine C. Gould $3,000.00 every month for her support and maintenance during her life.
- Katherine C. Gould received these monthly payments during the years 1913 and 1914.
- Congress approved the Income Tax Act on October 3, 1913.
Procedural Posture:
- A decree of the Supreme Court for New York County was entered in 1909, separating Mr. and Mrs. Gould from bed and board and ordering Mr. Gould to pay Katherine C. Gould monthly support.
- A lower court, addressing the question of whether these monthly payments constituted taxable income under the 1913 Income Tax Act, answered in the negative, finding them not to be taxable.
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 alimony paid to a divorced wife under a decree of a state court constitute "income" subject to taxation under the Act of Congress approved October 3, 1913?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McReynolds
No, alimony paid to a divorced wife under a court decree does not constitute "income" subject to taxation under the Act of Congress approved October 3, 1913. The Court emphasized the established rule of statutory construction for tax laws, which dictates that such provisions are not to be extended by implication beyond their clear language, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the citizen and against the Government. The Income Tax Act defined 'net income' broadly but specifically listed sources like salaries, wages, business gains, interest, and dividends. Citing Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, 577, 578, the Court reiterated that alimony does not arise from a business transaction or contract but from the natural and legal duty of a husband to support his wife, often regarded as a portion of the husband’s estate. While alimony might be considered a portion of his current income or earnings, the Court concluded that alimony payments to a divorced wife under a court decree did not 'fall fairly within any of the terms employed' in the Act's definition of income. Furthermore, the husband’s taxable income was not decreased by these alimony payments, implying that they should not be simultaneously taxed as income for the wife.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the principle of strict construction in tax law, particularly that tax statutes are to be interpreted narrowly and in favor of the taxpayer when ambiguity exists. It established that, under the 1913 income tax act, alimony was not considered taxable income to the recipient, viewing it as a fulfillment of a marital support duty rather than a 'gain' or 'profit' from a specified source. This decision has broad implications for how statutory language, especially in tax codes, must be explicit to impose a tax, influencing future legislative drafting and judicial interpretation of what constitutes taxable income.
