Helvering v. Taylor
293 U.S. 507 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a proceeding before the Board of Tax Appeals, a taxpayer who proves that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's deficiency determination is arbitrary and excessive is not required to also prove the correct amount of tax that is lawfully due in order to have the determination invalidated.
Facts:
- In August 1927, the taxpayer, Taylor, acquired all stock of four utility companies for a total cost of $96,030.
- In October 1927, Taylor organized a holding company and exchanged his utility stock for all of the holding company's shares, consisting of 1,000 preferred, 2,500 Class A common, and 5,000 Class B common shares.
- This exchange was classified as a non-taxable 'reorganization,' so Taylor's cost basis of $96,030 carried over to the new shares.
- In May 1928, the holding company sold the underlying utility stock to another corporation for $194,930.16.
- Later in 1928, the holding company redeemed all its preferred stock, paying Taylor $99,000 for his 1,000 shares.
- In his 1928 tax return, Taylor allocated his entire initial cost basis of $96,030 to the preferred stock he sold.
- Based on this allocation, Taylor reported a taxable gain of only $2,970 ($99,000 sale price - $96,030 basis).
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined a tax deficiency of $9,156.69 on Taylor's 1928 income tax return.
- Taylor, the petitioner, appealed the deficiency determination to the Board of Tax Appeals (a trial-level administrative court).
- The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the Commissioner's determination.
- Taylor, as appellant, appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals held the Commissioner's determination was excessive, reversed the Board's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The Commissioner, Helvering, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
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, after successfully proving that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's tax deficiency assessment is arbitrary and excessive, have the additional burden of proving the correct amount of tax owed to have the assessment invalidated by the Board of Tax Appeals?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
No. A taxpayer who demonstrates that the commissioner's deficiency determination is arbitrary and without rational foundation is not bound to pay that tax, even if he has not also proven the correct amount that lawfully might be charged. The burden is on the taxpayer to show the commissioner’s determination is invalid, but once that burden is met, the assessment cannot be enforced. There is nothing in the statutes or the Board's rules that requires a taxpayer to prove he owes nothing, or to show the correct amount, in order to set aside an arbitrary and excessive assessment. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the legislation that created the Board of Tax Appeals. Therefore, when the taxpayer shows the commissioner's determination is erroneous, the proper course is for the Board to hold a further hearing to determine the correct amount of the tax.
Dissent - Mr. Justice Stone
Yes. The Board of Tax Appeals is without authority to disturb the determination of the Commissioner unless the taxpayer establishes the amount by which the deficiency should be reduced. The statute defining the Board's jurisdiction requires it to redetermine the 'correct amount of the deficiency.' If the taxpayer fails to provide evidence from which a correct determination can be made, the Board cannot fulfill its statutory function. Therefore, the Commissioner's original determination should stand, as the respondent failed to establish any specific amount by which the assessed deficiency was incorrect.
Analysis:
This decision, often cited as the 'Taylor rule,' establishes a crucial principle in tax litigation, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary assessments. It clarifies that the taxpayer's burden of proof has two potential parts: proving the Commissioner's assessment is wrong, and proving the correct tax liability. The Court holds that completing the first part is sufficient to invalidate the Commissioner's determination. This prevents the government from winning by default through a baseless assessment simply because the taxpayer cannot perfectly reconstruct complex financial data to prove the exact correct figure. The ruling reinforces the role of the Board of Tax Appeals (now the Tax Court) as a forum for a fair, de novo hearing on the merits, rather than a body that merely reviews the Commissioner's actions for error.
