Helvering v. Eubank
61 S. Ct. 149, 1940 U.S. LEXIS 1104, 311 U.S. 122 (1941)
Rule of Law:
Income derived from personal services is taxable to the individual who earns it, even if the right to receive those payments is assigned to another after the services have been rendered and before payment is received.
Facts:
- During part of 1924, Eubank was a branch manager for the Canada Life Assurance Company, with compensation including a salary and commissions, whose employment terminated on September 1, 1924.
- Under his Canada Life contract, Eubank was entitled to renewal commissions on future premiums for policies written prior to termination, without needing to perform further services.
- In November 1924, Eubank assigned his right, title, and interest in the Canada Life contract and its renewal commissions to a corporate trustee.
- From September 1, 1924, to August 31, 1927, Eubank also served as a general agent for Aetna Life Assurance Company, initially as part of a firm and later individually.
- The Aetna contracts similarly entitled Eubank to commissions on renewal premiums paid after agency termination, without requiring further services.
- On March 28, 1928, Eubank assigned to the corporate trustee all commissions to become due him under the Aetna contracts.
- The sole purpose of these assignments was to confer on the assignees the power to collect the commissions as and when they became payable.
- During 1933, the corporate trustee collected approximately $15,600 in renewal commissions from these three agency contracts by virtue of the assignments.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the renewal commissions paid by the companies to the assignees in 1933 as income taxable to Eubank, the assignor, under the provisions of the 1932 Revenue Act.
- The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the Commissioner's assessment, finding a deficiency against Eubank.
- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the order of the Board of Tax Appeals.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 14, 1940.
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 taxpayer remain liable for income tax on commissions for services already rendered when the right to collect those commissions is assigned to a third party before they are paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
Yes, the commissions were taxable as income of the assignor in the year when paid. The Court held that this case presents issues not distinguishable from those in Helvering v. Horst, a companion case decided on the same day. For the reasons stated at length in Horst, the Court reaffirmed the principle that income is taxable to the person who earns it or controls the source of the income. Here, the assignments merely conferred upon the assignees the power to collect commissions for services already rendered by Eubank, thus the assignor, Eubank, remained the earner of the income and was subject to taxation upon its payment, regardless of the assignment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice McReynolds
No, the commissions should not be included in the assignor's income. Mr. Justice McReynolds argued that when a taxpayer, who makes income tax returns on a cash basis, assigns a right to money payable in the future for work already performed, they transfer a property right. The money, when received by the assignee, should not be income taxable to the assignor. The assignment entirely 'denuded the assignor of all right' to the commissions, placing them beyond his control. He contended that a mere right to collect future payments for services already performed is property that may be assigned, and the tax statute should not impose liability on the assignor for payments to another under a good-faith contract transfer. The dissent believed this case was distinguishable from Horst and aligned more with Blair v. Commissioner, where an assignment of income-producing property (a trust interest) successfully shifted tax liability.
Analysis:
This case, alongside Helvering v. Horst, solidified the 'fruit of the tree' doctrine in tax law, emphasizing that income is taxable to the individual who earns it, regardless of subsequent assignments. Eubank clarifies that this principle extends to income from personal services, even when those services are completed and the right to payment is vested. The decision prevents taxpayers from avoiding income tax liability by assigning the right to collect future payments for their past labor, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the progressive income tax system by ensuring tax falls on the true earner. Future cases would continue to grapple with the line between assigning income (taxable to the assignor) and assigning income-producing property (taxable to the assignee).
